ID checks, KYC and one-solution

[Igor82]

First off - apologies on the length of this post. I cant figure out how to use the CM blog yet.

EDIT: I wanted to test the level of my "inability" by going to CM blogs and there it is - "a new post button at the top"

So after reading VWM and Nifty's "popcorn-cravings-inducing" back/forth communications and chiming in here and there onto 3 separate simultaneous threads on ID checks and deriving issues, i did some research on anti-fraud measures.

Short of it is: there aren't too many. Yes, there are some UK centric solutions that are expanding like 192.com, there are some "services" that don't offer much promise. I've been looking for something i stumbled across many moons ago "www.playerinformation.com... www.player****.com player *something*" ... I cant remember or find it any longer. It was a basic centralised database of KYC checks with a login for players and a login for operators but the site hasn't budged in donkey years making me believe nothing much kicked off there.

Now i stumbled across

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

and frankly it just seems like another attempt to create something that will need as much player uptake (and meet with my privacy infringement claims) as it will need operator uptake to actually work.

This particular one is a joke IMHO, seeing as players are required to take a photo and as such not only will they have an issue with, but my best friend managed to print a pic of mine from facebook in colour, stick it in front of my high-end Alienware laptop screen not a week ago which in turn welcomed "me" generously, and proceed to elaborate about my first gay/transexual experience on my personal facebook page. So much for Photo-ID checks. A profile pic of a random guy can curb this photo-proofing system.

None of these systems are a long term solution in their own right.

KYC process is already laborious. I have read a few claims over here why it is done and noted that few players have a general grasp but not many players have an entire visibility to why it's there so i'd like to clarify that:

1. It's a regulation requirement. It is there to curb the "customer not present" issue and that extends to ID, email activation, sometimes mobile phone activation and utility bill check.

2. Payment method confirmation. That is the next step, which is used to

i) confirm that the user is the owner of the payment method and for example in case of cards, shows that it is not a stolen database of numbers, but the card is physically present and can be scanned by the user. It also connects the KYC checks with Card details as CC name information in fact will not be shared by the banks generally and is hard to validate.

ii) More than regulatory, it's there for operator protection from bogus claims that the user had no idea what he was doing. This is the reason why such requirement (screenshots) extends to e-wallets these days. E-wallets have their own KYC checks and card details are not exchanged directly with the casino so regulation deos not enforce it, but common sense in light of fraudulent claims does.

Which brings me to the last area: definitive fraud.

All additional checks and why it sometimes takes days to clear a person are due to vast amount of fraud going on. And i'm not talking about credit card theft, i'm talking about fraud that directly affects an operation and monetises on incentive bonuses or creates +EV via casino incentives, colluding efforts on a poker table and so on. These checks include a vast range of processes that for obvious reasons, i will not expose here.

So in such light, what do centralised ID checks do? Save you some time to certify yourself once instead of multiple times?

Sorry to burst your bubble VWM but if operators are to come on board and their voice is to count on the process itself, there is a good chance that photo ID and/or passport will be a requirement as it is the easiest to authenticate and by such logic, if you have them scanned once, doing it once or doing it individually where you want to play does not overwhelmingly simplify matters. It does not "solve" your ID problem, it may at best alleviate its frequency.

There is a solution that can be implemented though, and it is not based on a KYC database alone. It needs a powerful engine, a driving force that will make enough momentum for the industry to come behind it over the years, starting with operators who will benefit directly first, backed by providers who will listen to their operators and finishing with regulators who historically aren't really law "makers" - they simply condition what seems to be the public consensus and attempt to enforce it.

That is a Fraud database. A model which is not run by making the KYC process easier for players, but it is run by making the anti-fraud measures easier for operators. You see, if we had a quick-tap solution to spotting a fraudster, we wouldn't have to put you through the ropes of scrutiny as we do, for one. A database by which the various AP players and those that swear by "beatingbonuses" types of sites can be classified as such by being reported enough times. Multi-accounting users have their class, credit card thief's, ID thief's, and every other disingenuous one deposit loser out there that is craving their deposit back through lies and deceit because they either don't understand the industry they opted to be a part of or they understand it all-to-well.

That engine starts with small things, like a database of bogus PAB's and player info on those for example that is available to the accredited operators. It starts by a collective effort of few key OPERATORS sharing their information on fraudulent and genuinely deceitful players because it's easier to get those heads to talk than the masses of community at once and it slowly grows. It will grow not because it will overwhelmingly help the players and their KYC, it will grow because it will increase profits stemming from anti-fraud efficiency. On a B2B level, e-walls came chime in, vouchers, etc. and it could have a much faster growth curve.

Imagine how many small time operators could benefit from such a service, at a monthly membership fee. An anti-fraud operator community. And that is where it starts....

At this point when enough gaming places you have learned to love and enjoy are a part of it, players simply certify their identities there. They will either exist in the database and be red-flagged already or they will not. As their playing lifetime progresses so does their fraud rating.

Imagine a casino with 15 PAB complaints in 3 months. That surely raises Bryan's eyebrow. Now imagine a player with 15 fraud complaints and the reflection to their "credit rating" - is a same system inverted.

Benefits are clear:

- Operator members have easier and more efficient anti-fraud measures increasing their revenue stream with less effort.
- Players get an impartial rating system in terms of their "fraud rating"
- Players that are members of this system will have a much wider, more lenient welcome to the operators using it as well as possibly more lenient bonuses etc.

The main difference is that it will start with profit orientation and money makes the world go round.

Not enough transparency is achieved between gaming providers, and while we are competitive to one another we can also be of great mutual benefit to one another. It starts with us and the end benefit, as always, is to the honest gaming customer that enjoys their pass-time.

Throw in responsible gaming in there if you like... i think its a swell idea It needs a starting point though - a muscle to get it going. (wink wink)

 

[dunover]

Yes, you put some work into that lot!
The thing is, casinos are an across-border product. OK, we establish a base. IF incorrect info gets onto it (as is common in credit reference agencies) there has to be a system of comeback. Here, CRA's have been made to pay compensation to those libelled where mistakes (usually cross-identities) have been made. If the system was to be legally viable, then it would need to be accountable in all countries it was used in. I think a simpler solution would be for operators to share information gleaned from experience; those players verified and genuine and those on the fraud/AP list. Obviously this would be a non-contact ideal, so no hijacking customers from other sites once you have info. This could be limited to accredited casinos, whom would be trusted to use it properly.
There doesn't seem to be one simple solution to this issue, but that's the nearest I can see.

 

[Igor82]

Indeed!

What you speak of is exactly what I mean. It does not have to legally viable system, it over-complicates matters. It needs to be fair and accountable system. It needs to be transparent.

Imagine you have one operator that is feeding more claims on players than any other, but these players have not come about on the radar of any other operator. That would raise an eyebrow toward the operator themselves, not the players they are putting forward.

Likewise, similarly to the PAB conditions, you cant just name and shame - a process must be agreed for a valid inclusion.

Finally, you create a point rating system per player which puts them in escalating classes right up (down?) to rogued.

Then finally finally D) an established review board that decides on the process and conditions and reviews operator performance and fairness as well as the community progress and impact - keeping the system in check and accountable.

Imagine you had your favourites on there (sorry to be naming and... what's the opposite of shaming?): Mark, Andy, guy that people keep mentioning to me from 3dice, Ben, etc from the operator side. You have Bryan & few other impartial members of the community (with strong community real-estate and presence) that keep operators in check and offer impartial advice and there to ensure we are all on the same page. It's unifying he industry by eliminating the cancer: the fraudster > the symptom why the KYC checks are more and more rigorous.

It could work in theory, but it would also mean player information needs to be exposed amongst competitors. First step would be - only expose it after definitive account closure etc etc...

It just seems like the right approach to me, though it sounds like a one of those "if the world was this way" ideas for now...

 

[zebedy]

Was this what you were looking for ?

XXXhttps://www.playerverify.com/default.aspx

The owner is also a member at CM https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/members/

It was a pity he couldnt get it working as something like this would be good for everyone involved IMO

 

[Igor82]

Was this what you were looking for ?

XXXhttps://www.playerverify.com/default.aspx

The owner is also a member at CM https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/members/

It was a pity he couldnt get it working as something like this would be good for everyone involved IMO

YES! That was the one... it was promising at first... pity it didn't kick off.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Indeed!

What you speak of is exactly what I mean. It does not have to legally viable system, it over-complicates matters. It needs to be fair and accountable system. It needs to be transparent.

Imagine you have one operator that is feeding more claims on players than any other, but these players have not come about on the radar of any other operator. That would raise an eyebrow toward the operator themselves, not the players they are putting forward.

Likewise, similarly to the PAB conditions, you cant just name and shame - a process must be agreed for a valid inclusion.

Finally, you create a point rating system per player which puts them in escalating classes right up (down?) to rogued.

Then finally finally D) an established review board that decides on the process and conditions and reviews operator performance and fairness as well as the community progress and impact - keeping the system in check and accountable.

Imagine you had your favourites on there (sorry to be naming and... what's the opposite of shaming?): Mark, Andy, guy that people keep mentioning to me from 3dice, Ben, etc from the operator side. You have Bryan & few other impartial members of the community (with strong community real-estate and presence) that keep operators in check and offer impartial advice and there to ensure we are all on the same page. It's unifying he industry by eliminating the cancer: the fraudster > the symptom why the KYC checks are more and more rigorous.

It could work in theory, but it would also mean player information needs to be exposed amongst competitors. First step would be - only expose it after definitive account closure etc etc...

It just seems like the right approach to me, though it sounds like a one of those "if the world was this way" ideas for now...

Such a system, like a credit score from the credit reference agencies, needs to be transparent, and provide for a right of redress for the inclusion of incorrect information.

Rival had such a system, but far from being transparent, they at first denied it even existed. They then misused it, and part of the lack of transparency was down to them wanting to misrepresent which casinos were part of which group.

The concept has been badly damaged by the actions of Rival.

The other issue is that being an AP is not fraud, nor even a breach of contract. It is a bit like being smart with the weekly shop, playing one chain off against another to get the cheapest all round shop rather than just diving into the nearest Tesco and buying the lot there.

APs only become fraudsters when they start to misrepresent themselves to the casino in order to gain an advantage, an obvious example being multiple accounts under different, but borrowed, identities.

Simply spotting a good offer is no more fraudulent than saving money by using a "first time at Sainsburys" voucher one week, a "first time at Tesco" the next, and finishing with a "first time at Asda" on week three. It becomes fraud if on week four another "first time at Sainsburys" offer is used, and an additional online shopping account is created with a few misleading details in order to trick the system into accepting the second voucher.

What causes the problem is giving BETTER offers to unknown new customers than to the loyal customer base. It would NOT be a problem if loyal customers got better deals than new ones.

In the UK, when denied a loan or card, and I feel this is not a fair decision based on my financial history, I can obtain all the data held on me by credit reference agencies, and if it is wrong, I can have it corrected and my application reconsidered.

The Rival system was "top secret". Players were not allowed to see the data held on them, and thus not able to even check that it was correct, let alone challenge any mistakes.

Similar fears will create severe problems with attempts to create such a product as a central rating system for players, even though it will end up giving the average recreational player a far better experience.

The other problem with casino KYC is that it is seen as "one size fits all", and this leaves players of some countries at a disadvantage. Addressing this is not merely an industry problem, but one for the governments that are prepared to accept online casinos as a legitimate business. Some requirements are also set in the past, but with the spread of the internet things have moved on. Paper utility bills every three months are "so last century", and are the exception rather than the norm, with considerable effort being made by the government and "green lobby" to eradicate "paper billing" in favour of eBilling, which is often accompanied by automated regular monthly payments rather than "on demand" quarterly billing. Unfortunately, this model leaves players without the necessary "utility bill not older than 3 months" to scan and send with their photo ID.
Since the government here sees no need for a national photo ID card, we have a myriad of local and regional photo ID style services, which means that whilst UK players CAN often get a "government issued photo ID" as required, they are often finding it getting rejected by casinos because they lack the expertise needed to verify all the differing formats.

There have even been a few cases where UK players have had their driving license, even their passport, rejected because the casino has lacked the expertise to deal with the document. This makes players mistrust the true motives behind KYC, and it is often seen as a "non payment trick" rather than a genuine attempt to comply with KYC.

Innocent players are also enraged by the "extended checks" they are sometimes subjected to. Whilst they are anti fraud measures, an innocent player CANNOT understand what it is that they have done wrong in a given instance to create a mix up after which they probably end up being cleared. If they are innocent, and have done nothing different than before, the logical explanation to them is that the whole thing is a staling tactic, rather than a genuine validation check. They also feel insulted by the process as it implies they HAVE done something wrong, and they are never told what went wrong, even when they are eventually cleared.

In the vacuum of information, innocent players are left to speculate as to what has gone wrong, and one obvious thought, apart from a deliberate stalling tactic, is that they have become the unwitting victim of ID fraud, and that some fraudster has attempted to use their details to defraud a casino, possibly the same casino, and this brings the fear that this is an ongoing problem that they need to address, yet the industry refuses to assist by telling them enough about the problem so that they can start securing their identities before problems get out of hand.

After all, for every fraudster that uses a false identity in an attack on a casino, there is a victim who's identity has been hijacked, and if there is a rating system, possibly irreparably damaged in the process.

Under UK and EU law, such "secret databases" are illegal. Everyone has the legal right to receive a copy of all the data that a business holds and processes about them, a right to expect it to be accurate, and a right of correction where it is not. If there were an industry wide rating system, there are bound to be data disclosure requests from players that find themselves on a true industry wide blacklist. Individual operators would have to take care that what they pass to such a service is accurate, and can be backed up with evidence if challenged.

The credit reference industry has had years, if not decades, of operating under these legal constraints to provide a rating system to help banks and other businesses decide who is a good credit risk, and who is not.

Players also need a system where they can assess the risk of casinos, mainly to do with whether they have sufficient backing to honour monies lodged with them. It would help players avoid being stung in situations like the Purple Lounge collapse, where there was little in the way of warning signs of a problem that had been building for years.

If KYC is going to be so "pedantic" in it's requirements, these requirements must be made clear in "headline" information, not relegated to "smallprint".

For example, the "headline" advertising would say something like "Must be over 18 years of age and hold a valid passport". Seeing this would hopefully prompt players to query "why do I need a passport" before they register, rather than find out the hard way when they withdraw. The answer to said query would make them aware that they need a certain minimum level of documentation to play, even though such a requirement is not at all obvious for something you do sat at home on the PC. Everybody would accept that they would need a valid passport to fly to Vegas and play there, but would not necessarily think such a requirement also applies when Vegas effectively comes to them and sits on their PC.

 

[Igor82]

Such a system, like a credit score from the credit reference agencies, needs to be transparent, and provide for a right of redress for the inclusion of incorrect information.

True and not. While it can be transparent to user as to their rating - how they are rated should be reserved to be a unanimous decision of the operators who keep each other in check. Also the reason why the system should have impartial review body composed of industry reps as well as "advocates of fair play" - aka, community real-estate owners. Your rating does not depend on Rival or any one provider, it depends on multitude of operators and their agreement in regard to the classification of a "fraudster", Advantage Player, etc.

The other issue is that being an AP is not fraud, nor even a breach of contract. It is a bit like being smart with the weekly shop, playing one chain off against another to get the cheapest all round shop rather than just diving into the nearest Tesco and buying the lot there.

Irrelevant. Most of your post comparison to Tesco's/ASDA is bogus. AP is not a loyal customer, and casinos are not commodity suppliers - they are an entertainment industry that does not sell a product or a service for a one way charge, we pay back and as such take the risk together with you. The margin is not the holy grail of guaranteed profit and as we all know, takes it's toll in the long term game play which is not what any AP is willing to stay for.

AP is an in/out hitter that abuses the bonus driven conditioning of the industry that has gone too far to back out from it's insane acquisition model. I will openly say that on my casino AP's are not welcome and will never be. While i wont generalise in my terms and use "discretionary" terminology, the system sets bonus conditions to the best of my ability to draw a fine line between alienating AP's and not alienating huge variety of different player gameplay types and in process alienating their business. It's an unnecessary headache and you'd be fooling yourself if you didn't think that every fair-model operator out there would LOVE to be able to cater for every player, risk and headache free, instead of explain why is *this* bonus system better or different to *that* bonus system.

AP's make the bonusing system complex, they 'coined' the need for spirit of the bonus terminology which in turn got abused by rogue operators, and just like lack of fraudsters would ease up the KYC requirements, lack of the player type that has absolutely ZERO interest in actually "gambling" and absolutely 100% interest in ONLY profiting from a safe bet would ease up the bonuses themselves. That's not a loyal customer - that's not even a customer. That's a freebie hunter that will never risk his own penny if possible and frankly only lose when caught out or did not know enough to follow through.

Their behaviour may not be illegal, but just as B&M casinos kick out card counters (which if anything is more bewildering because you are banned for using your brain while risking your own money), we reserve the right to kick out a customer that isn't in it for the leisure but for pure calculated profit based on our general "welcome, please do try us out and we hope you stay" incentive.

Yeah, definitely class that one as "no bonus for you here, sir".

Rant over.

What causes the problem is giving BETTER offers to unknown new customers than to the loyal customer base. It would NOT be a problem if loyal customers got better deals than new ones.

Too late for that since the industry's initial two decades grew to be completely bonus oriented and the market is too saturated with the rogue casinos (and casinos in general) to incentivise a player to give a new place a shot when they already have a home they trust and service they know. Places like these where long-winded posts and open community discussions may show a casino in a fair and worthy light that can overshadow a low bonus offering are far and few in-between and don't work as a mass acquisition model. It's too late to change and as long as the giants still do it, little guys with no brand presence will need to beat them and "bigger bonus > harder terms" race will continue.

In the UK, when denied a loan or card, and I feel this is not a fair decision based on my financial history, I can obtain all the data held on me by credit reference agencies, and if it is wrong, I can have it corrected and my application reconsidered.

Again you compare a life impacting situation with an entertainment business which allows you almost 50/50 odds of doubling your money. In fact gives you extra money without you making a single bet. It is the equivalent of a supermarket offer that states "promise you will buy a 100 quid worth of stuff and we'll give you 200 free, for a potential profit of 5 quid (maybe) while possibly giving you 5000 if you are lucky"... it cant be compared. Banks, shops, supermarkets - none of those industry's start you off with 2for1 offer with a decent chance to come out on top over your few hundred spins. It's a non-comparison. You can TAKE/EARN money here by risking your own - you cant do that anywhere else, which is why gambling is

If as a casino i only had YOU as a player my risk would be equal to yours, my 3% advantage means absolutely nothing unless you decide to play against me day in - day out for the next 15 years. Margin is not a guarantee on an individual player level. As such, your classification can be argued but should not be made "transparent" to you - so if you are indeed a fraudster, your claim is you should be shown how you were classified so you dont do it again?

Sorry, but you cant have your cake and eat it too VWM. Either accept a transparent KYC/fraud central system that will help an honest player - and deter the unwanted one - or don't. If this one ticket should give you access to multitude of operators, then by default this one ticket should bar you too. Otherwise, why cant operators argue your validity of access if you can argue the validity of your bar?

The other problem with casino KYC is that it is seen as "one size fits all", and this leaves players of some countries at a disadvantage.

90% of the laws work on the same premise - generic enough to captivate the entirety of risk ,but flexible enough to be applied to a situation with reason. You can bet when eBilling becomes the norm , ALL industries will follow, likewise you can bet your government will soon conform to the biometric ID much faster than casinos conforming to "ah you are from UK? yeah sure transact without limitations or conditions..."

There is no point in creating double standards. You say "get with the times" - well "the times" on an international level are to get some form of ID that is easy to authenticate. As few people pointed out to you in the other threads its not nearly as hard as you make it out to be any longer.

we have a myriad of local and regional photo ID style services, which means that whilst UK players CAN often get a "government issued photo ID" as required, they are often finding it getting rejected by casinos because they lack the expertise needed to verify all the differing formats.

Not expertise, capacity. It's about standards - "a myriad of photo ID's" also includes my local squash court annual membership card. Should that be accepted? It's about confirming authenticity and you do that by accepting a standard you can authenticate. I have no idea what your local library id standards and KYC checks are and if you just need to walk in there and say you are Richard Branson before the old lady stamps your photo with a smile.

Surely you cannot expect such level of lenience? You simply have got to meet the industry you enjoy somewhere in the middle and as pointed out on other threads, it really is not that hard.

There have even been a few cases where UK players have had their driving license, even their passport, rejected because the casino has lacked the expertise to deal with the document. This makes players mistrust the true motives behind KYC, and it is often seen as a "non payment trick" rather than a genuine attempt to comply with KYC.

lets not create laws on the basis of out-of-the-norm cases made by ill equipped business owners. I'm sure there have also been cases of superiorly photo shopped ID's or hacked systems but the industry didnt create a process by which you would have to fly to the casino door in malta/gib/IoM to pick up your cheque in person

yeah those cases are dumb, but it's hardly the norm of behaviour. I have not met "enraged" players yet to be honest. A couple in my lifetime.

That said, if anti fraud measures were more transparent, the innocent player would not need to be subjected to scrutiny by each and every operator with their own process and their own views - they would be unanimously approved to the network, or barred from it.

In the vacuum of information, innocent players are left to speculate as to what has gone wrong,

Trust me, if operators actually spoke, the "innocent" would not be victimised nearly as much as you portray it. They may be *sometimes* victimised by individual operation that is ill equipped or takes it too far, but they are rarely "molested" by a class A operator. Moreover, in a transparent talkative system, one claim could as much be faced with an overwhelming rejection as it could with acceptance. The process would count on the collective experience and transparency - very much like banks do with credit checks.

Under UK and EU law, such "secret databases" are illegal.

I can create a database RIGHT NOW of players i think see red dots when they sit down. and i can classify my business to treat those players like royalty or not accept them, then i could convince another 50 businesses that such parameters are valid and now the 50 of us would put it in the terms that if you don't fall within the accepted rating of this collective business community - you are out. and there is NOTHING, but absolutely NOTHING illegal about it.

Everyone has the legal right to receive a copy of all the data that a business holds and processes about them, a right to expect it to be accurate, and a right of correction where it is not. If there were an industry wide rating system, there are bound to be data disclosure requests from players that find themselves on a true industry wide blacklist. Individual operators would have to take care that what they pass to such a service is accurate, and can be backed up with evidence if challenged.

True but that data does not need to be disclosed to a player suspected of behaviour that does not conform to the business acceptance standards. If a fraudster accused of fraud starts stomping feet that they want to know, with a smile i do not answer, but if however Max, LGA, or any REGULATORY or LEGAL body needs proof, I have it at the ready.

While you are indeed due your transaction, banking, game activity details, your bonus to deposit % uptake, bet size to deposit ratio, ip similaities with X,Y,Z and other fraud points do not have to exposed.

Players also need a system where they can assess the risk of casinos, mainly to do with whether they have sufficient backing to honour monies lodged with them. It would help players avoid being stung in situations like the Purple Lounge collapse, where there was little in the way of warning signs of a problem that had been building for years.

True but then you infringe into privacy or non public businesses. It's a two way street. You either trust the regulators to do their job, or you don't. If a player can access the entirety of financial information of every business out there, so can their competitors, making the door wide open for takeovers, and various other tactics... i don't want betsson to know how big or small i am until we agree for due diligence to be done on my business signed by me and with aim of a specific partnership...

If KYC is going to be so "pedantic" in it's requirements, these requirements must be made clear in "headline" information, not relegated to "smallprint".

For example, the "headline" advertising would say something like "Must be over 18 years of age and hold a valid passport". Seeing this would hopefully prompt players to query "why do I need a passport" before they register, rather than find out the hard way when they withdraw. The answer to said query would make them aware that they need a certain minimum level of documentation to play, even though such a requirement is not at all obvious for something you do sat at home on the PC. Everybody would accept that they would need a valid passport to fly to Vegas and play there, but would not necessarily think such a requirement also applies when Vegas effectively comes to them and sits on their PC.

But you don't always need a passport and you aren't always conformed to one regulation because regulation itself changes with the region - hence why a POLICY that is agreed upon is the way to go.

 

[vinylweatherman]

For years some of the biggest names in British business subscribed to a secret blacklist containing thousands of names with the power to deny work and destroy livelihoods. From the Millennium Dome to the iconic Olympic Park, some construction firms paid for information on workers they feared could delay work and cost them money. Reporter Richard Bilton does the first television interview with the bookkeeper for the organisation which ran the list. And he discovers that even though the list has now been closed down, blacklisting still appears to be alive and well in Britain

Substitute "biggest names in British business" with "biggest operators in online gambling" and then "names" with "players" and you have what you propose as the basis of your operator fed player rating system. The list had to be closed down once found out because it was ILLEGAL under data laws, as are all the others. They operate secretly, so of course they need to be found out before a legal challenge can be mounted.

The data protection laws relate to "personally identifiable data", so any rating system that can be used to personally identify a player would fall under the remit of these data laws, and require openness and disclosure on request of the data held on a given individual.

Non identifiable data could be gathered and processed outside of these laws, so you could have statistics on certain countries or patterns of play, but this would not be able to identify and follow individual players.

The way around such rules would be to operate from outside the EU, but take players from within. Unfortunately, this luxury is not going to last as many EU countries, including the UK, are tightening the rules which will result in the case of the UK that casinos offering games to UK players being governed by UK laws.

In the case of credit scoring, whilst the scoring algorithm itself does not have to be disclosed, the input data relating to an individual does. Appeals against loan refusal are dealt with by the Financial Regulator, and no doubt the new system will have UK regulators dealing with player complaints.

The problem with the current system used to combat AP is that their bets are taken, and then they are retrospectively voided. This is not what happens when a land casino kicks out a card counter. The bets already accepted and resolved remain, but the casino states that all future bets will not be accepted.

Any rating system would have to work like this in order to get the mass of players on side. This means checking the fraud and AP rating at the point of registration, and declining entry at that point if the database flags up fraud or an AP risk. Without involving the emotive issue of retrospective voiding of winnings, there would be less of an opportunity to gain sympathy on forums.

This has already happened. Players who are rejected at the point of registration make the same level of fuss, particularly the APs, but on average get less sympathy because they have not had winnings voided, merely their bets refused.

However, too aggressive an approach could still scare off the players the industry wants.

The existence of the database would also be exposed, as it would be the only logical explanation for a player being blackballed from a string of unrelated casinos after being too clever at a few.

It's how the Rival player rating system dragged the reputation of Rival as a brand down, and deterred ordinary players as well as the APs from signing up.

Playtech also have a database of APs, but they won't admit it, although the operator of Grand Duke once let slip that he had used it to bar a new player at the point of registration.

 

[Igor82]

In the case of credit scoring, whilst the scoring algorithm itself does not have to be disclosed, the input data relating to an individual does. Appeals against loan refusal are dealt with by the Financial Regulator, and no doubt the new system will have UK regulators dealing with player complaints.

Fine, easily solved then:

Case 1:

1. Similarity to individual player /group of players > 30 points.
2. Game activity connection suspicioins> 10 points
3. XXX XXX "insert vague rule that doesnt give out how here" > 50 points

total points: 225 > classification: off the charts colluder. Data attributed by casino A. result account closed at casino A.

Data confirmed to be similar in casino B,C,D. Casino E did not pick up on such pattern yet. others have not heard of him/her.

Result: others can accept his registration at their own risk, however since the player rating (some form of ID that cannot be traced to an individual could be assigned for public listing) is public those casinos knew what they were getting into and as such taking deposits and not paying out winnings could be classified as poor busines practice.

Player scoring system is exposed but the algorithms aren't. (for a raw example)

Bottom line open comms in cases of fraud between operators once accounts are closed by an operator can damage no one and attribute to everyone. It just takes solidarity.

Any rating system would have to work like this in order to get the mass of players on side. This means checking the fraud and AP rating at the point of registration, and declining entry at that point if the database flags up fraud or an AP risk. Without involving the emotive issue of retrospective voiding of winnings, there would be less of an opportunity to gain sympathy on forums.

that's EXACTLY what this system would achieve. Something that cant be done now. At this point i have to gauge player bets, try to design advanced systems that automatically punish types play AP's employ in order to sustain my credibility. There is a handful of systems that can do that - automate the "punishment" - vast majority still depend on "you breached t&c's so we took your winnings" approach.

With this kind of rating, you'd know the player'#s "credit history" based on other casino experience that classify them under mutually agreed conditions and you can refuse entry before bets are placed. If it spreads wide enough the only places fraudsters and AP's will be left to play at are rogues and that'll be a funny forum to read.

The existence of the database would also be exposed, as it would be the only logical explanation for a player being blackballed from a string of unrelated casinos after being too clever at a few.

not only exposed but just like Affiliate guard dog stamp is given to the accredited programs, casinos will carry a stamp of this system and inform players their "one-check" (mmm?) ID is accepted here.

It just sounds better and better to me.

 

[Jasminebed]

I have absolutely no issue with a database for fraudsters, or even suspected fraudsters. Keep a data base of Advantage Players too if you wish, and share it with your colleagues.

Ban anyone you like for any reason from your establishment.

Fraudsters are unlikely to be stopped from claiming NDBs and SUBs, as they have a myriad of identities, or enter misleading information. They are only caught usually at cashout as it is.

Advantage players do exist. If you took their deposit or GAVE THEM A NDB, pay their legitimate winnings. Bonus ban them afterwards, or even close their accounts. They move on anyway you claim.

Casinos get to choose the terms of bonuses, not the players. And Advantage Players are legitimate players. So are some low-rollers that may find accounts closed because transactions costs exceed their value to a casino.

Even with a database, the only way this system will work is if KYC checks are carried out before awarding a NDB or accepting a deposit by a player, systems we are consistently told are unworkable.

If casinos really want to fight the fraudsters and the advantage players STOP USING AFFILIATES THAT OFFER SUCH STRATEGIES.

As Enzo of 3Dice said, the only time bonuses are beatable are when players can do better math than the casino.

As you know, I signed up quite a while ago at Bet-at on a NDB. I found the platform slow and awkward, wouldn't have probably returned even if I had cashed out at that time.

Your presence here Igor (and another NDB offer) enticed me to try your casino again, and bear through some teething pains with the error codes etc.

But would I have entered that database back then as an AP? There are a few CM accredited casinos I don't play for various reasons, some of which I have taken a NDB or a SUB at.

You suggested I low-roll to meet wagering on a promotion in chat the other night. That's beating bonuses 101, and we often see players that try not to lose back a big win by placing more modest bets accused of bonus abuse, and sometimes winnings confiscated, far too often in fact.

Do you think that rating database you propose is going to get balanced input from casinos where you are a loyal customer? Player Jazzy doesn't cash out when $100 ahead --- knock off 10 points. Player only cashed out once, and never since --- knock off 30 points. Player always reverses if funds are pending for 24 hours --- knock off 20 points.

Combo that up with real names and addresses, and I can fully expect a fat pile of CDs in my mailbox.

Oh, and the potential for spam originating from such a list.

I think I may have changed my mind about that database after all.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I have absolutely no issue with a database for fraudsters, or even suspected fraudsters. Keep a data base of Advantage Players too if you wish, and share it with your colleagues.

Ban anyone you like for any reason from your establishment.

Fraudsters are unlikely to be stopped from claiming NDBs and SUBs, as they have a myriad of identities, or enter misleading information. They are only caught usually at cashout as it is.

Advantage players do exist. If you took their deposit or GAVE THEM A NDB, pay their legitimate winnings. Bonus ban them afterwards, or even close their accounts. They move on anyway you claim.

Casinos get to choose the terms of bonuses, not the players. And Advantage Players are legitimate players. So are some low-rollers that may find accounts closed because transactions costs exceed their value to a casino.

Even with a database, the only way this system will work is if KYC checks are carried out before awarding a NDB or accepting a deposit by a player, systems we are consistently told are unworkable.

If casinos really want to fight the fraudsters and the advantage players STOP USING AFFILIATES THAT OFFER SUCH STRATEGIES.

As Enzo of 3Dice said, the only time bonuses are beatable are when players can do better math than the casino.

As you know, I signed up quite a while ago at Bet-at on a NDB. I found the platform slow and awkward, wouldn't have probably returned even if I had cashed out at that time.

Your presence here Igor (and another NDB offer) enticed me to try your casino again, and bear through some teething pains with the error codes etc.

But would I have entered that database back then as an AP? There are a few CM accredited casinos I don't play for various reasons, some of which I have taken a NDB or a SUB at.

You suggested I low-roll to meet wagering on a promotion in chat the other night. That's beating bonuses 101, and we often see players that try not to lose back a big win by placing more modest bets accused of bonus abuse, and sometimes winnings confiscated, far too often in fact.

Do you think that rating database you propose is going to get balanced input from casinos where you are a loyal customer? Player Jazzy doesn't cash out when $100 ahead --- knock off 10 points. Player only cashed out once, and never since --- knock off 30 points. Player always reverses if funds are pending for 24 hours --- knock off 20 points.

Combo that up with real names and addresses, and I can fully expect a fat pile of CDs in my mailbox.

Oh, and the potential for spam originating from such a list.

I think I may have changed my mind about that database after all.

This is the issue casinos are unwilling to address. Not only are these "bonus beating" sites able to run affiliate accounts, they even get "special deals" from casinos to entice them to send their APs to them. If a casino grants the webmaster of beatingbonuses(dot)com an affiliate account, they KNOW they are going to get a high proportion of APs headed their way, so why do they do it? Worse still, why do they give special codes to a site such as "blackjack guy" that make the SUB more "blackjack friendly". It should be obvious what type of AP a site called blackjackguy(dot)com (for example, but I am pretty sure this is a real affiliate with a similar site somewhere) is going to be sending your way.

What SHOULD be looked for in an affiliate site is good marketing, but not an overt advertising of how to extract maximum value from the welcome boni.

The guide on one such site even had the instruction to take the SUB and then "move on to the next prospect" rather than stay loyal.

These sites do not charge a joining fee, the casinos fund them via the affiliate payments (not all players beat the bonus, so revenue IS generated). They may even use CPA deals so they get paid whether or not players beat the SUB, and don't lose out from players failing to stay loyal.

If these sites found themselves unable to get affiliate accounts, they would struggle to survive, and may have to start charging membership fees. This would deter casual traffic, and there would be fewer new players lured into becoming "bonus chasers" as a means to make a regular income.

When I started out, it didn't occur to me that players could make a GUARANTEED profit over time through "bonus hunting", but I soon found out. What put me off that path was the sheer TEDIUM needed to clear a relatively small profit from a given bonus. It was something like playing Blackjack at £1 a hand using a printed "perfect strategy" chart, and entailed several hours of sheer tedium to clear about £30 on average per SUB. This is less than minimum wage!!!!!!

This "safe as houses" tedium just didn't appeal to me, so I went for more volatility. When I win, it's worth withdrawing, not a miserly £30 after a 12 hour session.

 

[P.V.]

Was this what you were looking for ?

XXXhttps://www.com/default.aspx

The owner is also a member at CM https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/members/

It was a pity he couldnt get it working as something like this would be good for everyone involved IMO

I need to take baby steps here because I don't want to sound self promoting, so no site link added.

Just for clarification we're still active and moving forward. We were approved by the NGCB back in March, then went before the NGC later that month and they requested changes so it went back to the NGCB.

On July 10th, 2013 we were approved again by the NGCB, will be back in Nevada before the NGC on July 25th, 2013 for hopefully final approval. I'm also filing with N.J..

One stipulation is I can only deal with licensed U.S. sites only if we reach final approval, that's why I stopped pursuing legal offshore sites a long time ago. Although if you're a player planning on traveling to a licensed U.S. state you can sign up.

I created what the OP is speaking of, a fraud database where operator members can report fraud taking place on their site which is viewable by all operators along with a search option.

I also created a one click self exclusion database avoiding the painstaking process of going to multiple sites to totally self exclude, patent pending.

In addition someone mentioned a player rating system, well I did that too. If you use the same doc's, keep them stored within your account it will show how many sites have approved your ID doc's etc..

A centralized system can work but one misconception about what I created is that I don't verify doc's but rather provide a Website system, with multiple functions.

Within the U.S. legal market the following must occur.

".com is a website designed to facilitate the secure transmission of confidential documents between an Internet gaming patron and an Internet gaming website. The verification of the validity of such documents is on the burden of the Internet gaming website since the wagering account is established through the licensed provider. .com does not offer verification services, but merely serves as a conduit for secure document supply."

So for clarification I'm still in the mix but U.S. only per gaming regulations, no pity yet!

 

[Igor82]

I have absolutely no issue with a database for fraudsters, or even suspected fraudsters. Keep a data base of Advantage Players too if you wish, and share it with your colleagues.

Fraudsters are unlikely to be stopped from claiming NDBs and SUBs, as they have a myriad of identities, or enter misleading information. They are only caught usually at cashout as it is.

They may have a myraid of identities but they are always caught via similarity focal points. Those can be brought forward as well as the identities they use which are usually forged. At the point of withdrawal their true identity is however uncovered and while closing the account is great for that operator, naming and shaming the culprit with others achieves a more efficient firewall and a much narrower circle within which identity fraudsters can operate.

Advantage players do exist. If you took their deposit or GAVE THEM A NDB, pay their legitimate winnings. Bonus ban them afterwards, or even close their accounts. They move on anyway you claim. Casinos get to choose the terms of bonuses, not the players. And Advantage Players are legitimate players. So are some low-rollers that may find accounts closed because transactions costs exceed their value to a casino.

1) lets not mix the two (low dep customer and AP) and 2) to refer to your NDB example with your account - non dep player that took an NDB wont be classified as AP, that would be ludicrous - however a player that takes a sub and then proceeds to wager 10,000 by playing Red and black together on a table, without ever having a chance of winning with sole purpose of grinding the free token out IS. Those i do classify and all their details and store them for later reference, if there is ever need. There is a vast difference between a customer that hasn't been converted and a customer that CLEARLY isn't in it for the pleasure of gambling.

Even with a database, the only way this system will work is if KYC checks are carried out before awarding a NDB or accepting a deposit by a player, systems we are consistently told are unworkable.

exactly what this system would achieve. Insert your playerverify.com (well done mate btw) ID at registration and get green lights throughout. Most probably over time T&C's will come in place which state for PV certified customers - these terms are not valid giving you a MORE liberal experience since we feel safer with you.

If casinos really want to fight the fraudsters and the advantage players STOP USING AFFILIATES THAT OFFER SUCH STRATEGIES.

doesn't really happen - small timers cant afford to waster their precious volume on this and big guys that may have it working have it because they are too big to control their resource. NO-ONE wants those type of players except casinos that are already rogue in their practices. Let this sentence also serve to contradict VWM outlandish generalisation that is very possibly backed by little or no factual knowledge in regards to "deals" between bonus abuse affs and casinos. We're talking here on the premise of accredited businesses not rogues and as such you cannot mix the business practices of the two.

As Enzo of 3Dice said, the only time bonuses are beatable are when players can do better math than the casino.

Yes roulette math completely works even when covering the entire table in roulette, 10 on every number - its actually allowed with a number of games and it shows up as a bet-push stream of transactions. It still grinds the bonus down. Again, we're not talking about betfair happy hour oulandish x10 deposit promotions that honest players just simply benefited from because some marketing exec was asleep. I'm talking about full blown PEV calcs with downright obvious play and its aim. IN example above which player in their right mind will place bets what cannot yield a win? We cant generalise here as its very easy blur the lines.

As you know, I signed up quite a while ago at Bet-at on a NDB. I found the platform slow and awkward, wouldn't have probably returned even if I had cashed out at that time.

Your presence here Igor (and another NDB offer) enticed me to try your casino again, and bear through some teething pains with the error codes etc.

But would I have entered that database back then as an AP? There are a few CM accredited casinos I don't play for various reasons, some of which I have taken a NDB or a SUB at.

No, nad after our long conversations on the site chat and here you'd know that moral fiber streaming through some operators differs from the others. That includes bonuses, their structure, their features etc, however it also includes operator approach toward their own T&C's and players. Again, i think we are missing the point of WHOM this list is for. The list needs to be composed with accountability, credibility and transparency in mind. Ratings of various classifications need to be voted on and approved before they are integrated into the system:

You really need to look at this as an inverted PAB. Would max allow you to be declared an AP because you two two NDB's without T&C's being explicit on having a limit of 1? No. Well the same premise goes here.

You suggested I low-roll to meet wagering on a promotion in chat the other night. That's beating bonuses 101, and we often see players that try not to lose back a big win by placing more modest bets accused of bonus abuse, and sometimes winnings confiscated, far too often in fact.

It was a promotion that was maximising cashback that i suggest that - and frankly low-rolling on bonuses is NOT AP. Another prominent CM member actually just won quite a hefty sum - i cant disclose his gameplay but he in fact BREACHED one of my terms which states that the bet cant drop below 50% of the winning bet. I would however be ab-so-lu-tely boinkers if i were to enforce that terms on his bet size. That term protects me from some syndication that comes in in hordes, takes the SUB(s) and hits 20-30-50e spins and THEN drops their hand value to 30c. Pushing that term onto what is obviously a slot lover that loves different bets on different slots isn't morally sound, just like playing with cashing a bonus out as 100% goal isn't either.

Massive difference. If your bet size in naturally 90p-5e then thats all well and good. but if you take your hand up to 50e when using bonus funds and 50p after you win or when using real funds - well sorry, its our prerogative to stop that kind of behaviour.

That is why i told you to low-roll, you don't deviate from what you naturally play because you aren't trying to maximise on bonus only - you are trying to have a good time and enjoy the thrill when you DO come out on top. However, you let the game decide that, not cold hard mathematics based on the size and value of the freebie given.

Do you think that rating database you propose is going to get balanced input from casinos where you are a loyal customer? Player Jazzy doesn't cash out when $100 ahead --- knock off 10 points. Player only cashed out once, and never since --- knock off 30 points. Player always reverses if funds are pending for 24 hours --- knock off 20 points.

One of my first examples was to ensure data is exchanged on fraudsters only and to ensure that it would have to be submitted on account closure. I see your reservation, but it would be irresponsible to share player loayalties. This isn't an attempt to create a casino network, this is an attempt to create an anti-fraud environment that is much harder to penetrate than currently, with casinos in isolation.

This is the issue casinos are unwilling to address. Not only are these "bonus beating" sites able to run affiliate accounts, they even get "special deals" from casinos to entice them to send their APs to them.

I wish I could not comment you distrustful goof It's not all cloak and dagger and conspiracies. Some people are just trying to make an honest living by:

1. getting the right player (definition: wouldn't mind playing for real for the sake of playing, but will welcome a bonus if its fair and does not hurt his/her odds or tie them up. doesn't change gamplay drastically because bonus is in play. Doesn't ONLY go for the bonus and throws a rant when there isn't one.)

2. eliminating the wrong player (Definition: what above is not. Player that will ONLY go for a bonus and will play with absolute aim to maximise that bonus. They aren't interested in the games, how they play, how much fun they are, or casino in general, they are in it for the best possible profit form this opportunity. Similarly to insider trading stock brokers - just in it for the dough no matter the rules of the game. until legislation was written to manage them, they had free reign - legislators needed to learn FROM their behaviours to create laws to manage them)

3. Give the player 1 a superior experience and make them your number 1 place: game selections, right loyalty, etc. Now this is where it gets tricky, more money saved on player 2, means easier and more loyal player 1 experience.

It really isn't all about "deals" and "casinos promoting AP to purposely do this and that". If you want to discuss rogue pit behaviour we can, but lets separate the two.

I need to take baby steps here because I don't want to sound self promoting, so no site link added.

No, no pity at all. I :notworthy instead. It did not seem to move for a long time in any direction so i just assumed, wrongly. I hope it kicks off and i hope you put right safeguards in place to not let it skew in a wrong direction. really well done and as soon as you establish a European base... Well, as the say

"What has two thumbs and is keen to be a client?"

This guy

 

[catapultaudio]

VWM, I know this might not be the most relevant place to mention this but I notice you forever getting a hammering on here for your opinions on the KYC issue, I just wanted to say I'm one of those '29 people' who do appreciate your POV and could really do with a solution, so thanks - My passport is currently expired and my budget is simply wafer thin right now, as it is for a lot of people I suspect - getting a passport would require a months gambling budget for me right now, and I cannot renew my driving license as it is currently suspended on medical grounds, so I have to choose where I play very carefully for the time being ...

Maybe I will use some winnings to acquire a passport in the future but on the rare occassion I do win, who wants to spend it on a way of getting paid the next time it comes around rather than a treat of some kind ...? ...

I do however realise I might well be in a minority, and respect the opinions of others on the subject too - maybe with finances this low I shouldn't even be gambling at all I guess...

 

[vinylweatherman]

VWM, I know this might not be the most relevant place to mention this but I notice you forever getting a hammering on here for your opinions on the KYC issue, I just wanted to say I'm one of those '29 people' who do appreciate your POV and could really do with a solution, so thanks - My passport is currently expired and my budget is simply wafer thin right now, as it is for a lot of people I suspect - getting a passport would require a months gambling budget for me right now, and I cannot renew my driving license as it is currently suspended on medical grounds, so I have to choose where I play very carefully for the time being ...

Maybe I will use some winnings to acquire a passport in the future but on the rare occassion I do win, who wants to spend it on a way of getting paid the next time it comes around rather than a treat of some kind ...? ...

I do however realise I might well be in a minority, and respect the opinions of others on the subject too - maybe with finances this low I shouldn't even be gambling at all I guess...

This illustrates my point well. In the UK, the Drivers License is the ONLY internal document that is widely used to proxy for a National ID card. Your problem is that in order to be "financially included", you would have to lie to DVLA to keep the license, but use your own morals to not actually drive on it. Many elderly people have the same problem, and this is a significant part of the population, not just "28 people". Groups representing the elderly have been putting pressure on UK banks, regulators, and government to do something about it, but only recently has the government shown a fear of pissing off the pensioner. The recent changes to benefits all have one thing in common, "this change does not affect pensioners".

The "grey vote" is now powerful enough to change the outcome of elections, so of course the politicians are scared. However, very few pensioners are comfortable with the Internet, but as this industry matures, we will see players like myself start collecting the state pension, and even having to give up our drivers licenses.

As for this:-

My passport is currently expired and my budget is simply wafer thin right now

I expect you will be told "If you can't even afford to renew your passport, you shouldn't be gambling anyway".

Maybe the industry does think this, because players with such low budgets don't make enough profit, and their loss will hardly make a difference.

Putting pressure on businesses is just one part of the attack, pressure needs to be put on government to ensure that people are routinely issued with the documents needed to pass KYC checks. This can be done either by issuing new documents, altering the criteria for current ones (such as allowing for an "ID only" version of the driving license), or changing the criteria for KYC checking, and agreeing it at the EU level.

If you are able to pass KYC for a bank account, you should be able to pass KYC for a casino without having to get additional documentation, as it's the SAME set of regulations.


I will have to take a look to see whether there is a means to raise these issues with the UK government without just being fobbed off. I suspect an interest group, such as one representing pensioners or disadvantaged areas, would have a better chance of getting some action than an individual.

 

[Igor82]

Maybe the industry does think this, because players with such low budgets don't make enough profit, and their loss will hardly make a difference.
.

Wow! Sometimes you really let it fly off the handle don't you? The 'industry' thinks this because gambling is leisure that has a dark side to it and if you can't afford to do something as cheap as renew a passport I'd suggest you don't gamble, as much as I'd suggest you don't spend your last fiver on a pack of cigs, and not because your revenue is not significant.

You've been around enough and heard enough of reps to must know that some statements you make are outright outlandish.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Wow! Sometimes you really let it fly off the handle don't you? The 'industry' thinks this because gambling is leisure that has a dark side to it and if you can't afford to do something as cheap as renew a passport I'd suggest you don't gamble, as much as I'd suggest you don't spend your last fiver on a pack of cigs, and not because your revenue is not significant.

You've been around enough and heard enough of reps to must know that some statements you make are outright outlandish.

Outlandish, but casinos have actually ADMITTED this is how they feel about what they call "negative value accounts". There are also some posters here that believe players who can't afford to spend £100 on a passport should not be gambling anyway.

There was quite a furore a while back where casinos were shutting the accounts of "negative value players". The players had done nothing wrong, no AP, didn't even take boni, but what they DID have in common was that they made regular small deposits, and got plenty of playing time for very little outlay. Despite mostly losing, the casinos argued that the money lost didn't even cover their overheads on those accounts, so they had a clear out and shut them down. They hid behind the "right to refuse admission", but the explanation was wrung out of them in the end.

These were not just the rogues either, there were a couple of then accredited casinos involved. Purple Lounge was one such accredited casinos that barred a number of "negative value players", even though they were losing money overall to the casino. Despite their indignation at the time, it turned out they had a lucky escape.

 

[Nifty29]

Outlandish, but casinos have actually ADMITTED this is how they feel about what they call "negative value accounts". There are also some posters here that believe players who can't afford to spend £100 on a passport should not be gambling anyway.

There was quite a furore a while back where casinos were shutting the accounts of "negative value players". The players had done nothing wrong, no AP, didn't even take boni, but what they DID have in common was that they made regular small deposits, and got plenty of playing time for very little outlay. Despite mostly losing, the casinos argued that the money lost didn't even cover their overheads on those accounts, so they had a clear out and shut them down. They hid behind the "right to refuse admission", but the explanation was wrung out of them in the end.

These were not just the rogues either, there were a couple of then accredited casinos involved. Purple Lounge was one such accredited casinos that barred a number of "negative value players", even though they were losing money overall to the casino. Despite their indignation at the time, it turned out they had a lucky escape.

Last time I checked, online casinos were not community services I.e.they have a right to decide who they do and don't want as customers.

You often make it sound like it is a human right to be accepted as a player by online casinos. It is not.

You also talk as if the upcoming UK gaming laws are going to somehow force operators to treat all players equally and change their business model to cater for those 28 people who can afford to gamble regularly but can't afford to GET photo ID.

I'll issue a challenge to you VWM. Find and quote all cases here at CM where UK players remain unpaid because they cannot prove their identity. Have fun.

See, in the cases I've seen, even though there may have been an issue initially, the issue was RESOLVED.....so all this whole UK ID thing really amounts to a DELAY for those affected. Frankly, if these players won't obtain photo ID, then they have to put up with a delay.....I don't see how that is in any way unreasonable.

Bottom line....it is NOT costing UK players their winnings. It is a NON ISSUE. The exceptions would be rogue operators, who were not going to pay anyway and used the ID thing as a convenient excuse.

I can't believe how much forum space has been wasted on something that isn't causing anything other than a minor delay at reputable casinos.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Here are some examples.

1) Negative Value players

No one got the run around. We told the player out flat what the player's status is.

And for the record, we don't bonus ban based on winnings, that would be crazy. There are protocols for finding negative value players. As a business, we must do this. It is nothing personal, I personally wish players we bonus ban luck at other casinos. And it may not even be about a advantage play. There are simply people who it will cost us more to entertain them, than we will make.

We want to provide a stellar service, faster payouts, and better promos. To do this, we need to conduct our business wisely.

If you don't use bonuses, we actually just put out a system where instead of bonuses players get 10% weekly cash back (in cash, no play through, no max, fully cash able) and $1 comp per $1000 wagered. This is something players can opt into (and we have marketing materials for affiliates to promote this). This was actually created in response to feedback we have received right here on Casinomeister as well as private correspondence regarding on our comp system.

We aim to please, and I think we are pretty good at it, I think player's wouldn't be complaining when we bonus ban them if they weren't interested in what we have to offer. In the end, we only bonus ban a very small percentage of players.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/this-is-what-happens-when-you-win-too-many-times.39769/

2) Bad traffic due to allowing "bonus beating" sites to operate as affiliates.

Though I know that this forum is typically dedicated to the player side of the business, I thought this to be revalent given the recent roast of Prime Casino. In addition, I felt that this was a large enough audience to make those of you who are operators/affiliate managers/casino directors, aware of what's happening.

I am actually in agreement with those of you have deemed some of our terms to be "Draconian". I have had to modify our terms in this manner due to the fact that the lion's share of our traffic over the last two months consisted bonus seekers and advantage players. Though there is absolutely nothing illegal or even immoral about being one of these people, it is simply impossible to remain profitable when the majority of your players are mathematical gamblers.

Having said everything above, I'd like to bring an issue to light that has been plaguing us for several weeks. There exist in our business, rings of advantage, bonus seeker, and mathematical gamblers (I don't like labels but whatever you want to call them...) that are coming from a very short list of affiliates. At the top of this list in our Casino is a man known as: AKA23. I informed the Affiliate Manager dealing with him to ask him politely to stop sending traffic over two weeks ago. Since then, one of his advantage players has taken us for an enormous amount of money.

Again, there is nothing illegal about what this man is doing but I want to make all of you aware to watch out for this guy. He and a few other affiliates (in my opinion) are running a largescale operation sending hordes of bonus seekers to casinos. I can confirm this because I have a friend at another major Microgaming group who was complaining about this very person to me. He has also sent almost the same number of players to them as well. It was then that I decided to say something about it as I would prefer that affiliates like this are banned from all Affiliate Programs as they make business very difficult for everyone.

Though AKA has been polite and candid about sending awful players, he has after two weeks of almost daily emails, refused to take our listing down from his sites.

In summary, he is the main source of our poor quality traffic and our new terms and conditions have been adjusted to prevent us from being cleaned out by his players and others like them.

Lastly, I read some of my posts on the "other" thread and realized that I may have come off a bit snide. I apologize if some of you took me this way but I was dealing with a massive influx of these "players" and so watching advantage players complain about their winnings being withdrawn was not something I was overly sympathetic about. Having said that though, it was wrong to reverse chargeback their Neteller accounts and we will not be doing this again.

Our software has been recently patched to make it impossible to withdraw until the wagering requirements are met. Because of this new feature, we will never again issue a payment that shouldn't be issued. Having said that, a player will never actually be able to break the terms by withdrawing early either.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/casino-operators-beware-aka23.17990/

The casino marketing team only had to check out the URL for this problem to have been "bleedin' obvious" long before it became an issue. Even when the rep had to come out in public, they first tried changing their back end systems rather than terminating this "bad" affiliate's account.

There are many affiliates like this, and casinos often seem "asleep at the wheel", and thus get their ass bitten by large hordes of "bonus seekers". I have visited such sites, and they give a step by step guide to beating the bonus they are advertising.

3)
Downfall of one of the finest accredited groups.

They were going bust, and went bust, but they were held in such high esteem that many were in denial, and those that suggested this was a case of a casino group going bust were initially derided. About a third of the way through though, the truth started to come out.

Plenty of deliberate disinformation right from the top of the group in question, and this meant that they were still able to lure players into depositing despite lacking the assets to pay the winners.

The claim was that they had been hammered by large groups of "fraudsters", but it turned out this was an exaggeration. The "audit" appears to have been nothing more than a stalling tactic giving them justification for freezing payouts for an unspecified period of time.

It goes on, and has happened again since, and these were not rogue operators, but well regarded ones.

(It's a long thread).

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

4) The danger of incorrect information being stored and shared in a central database with no proper right to have incorrect data removed or corrected.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

 

[incrediblestuff]

Here are some examples.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/this-is-what-happens-when-you-win-too-many-times.39769/

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/casino-operators-beware-aka23.17990/

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

thanks for that, that is some interesting reading material!

 

[Nifty29]

Here are examples.

1) Negative Value players



https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/this-is-what-happens-when-you-win-too-many-times.39769/

2) Bad traffic due to allowing "bonus beating" sites to operate as affiliates.



https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/casino-operators-beware-aka23.17990/

The casino marketing team only had to check out the URL for this problem to have been "bleedin' obvious" long before it became an issue. Even when the rep had to come out in public, they first tried changing their back end systems rather than terminating this "bad" affiliate's account.

There are many affiliates like this, and casinos often seem "asleep at the wheel", and thus get their ass bitten by large hordes of "bonus seekers". I have visited such sites, and they give a step by step guide to beating the bonus they are advertising.

3)
Downfall of one of the finest accredited groups.

They were going bust, and went bust, but they were held in such high esteem that many were in denial, and those that suggested this was a case of a casino group going bust were initially derided. About a third of the way through though, the truth started to come out.

Plenty of deliberate disinformation right from the top of the group in question, and this meant that they were still able to lure players into depositing despite lacking the assets to pay the winners.

The claim was that they had been hammered by large groups of "fraudsters", but it turned out this was an exaggeration. The "audit" appears to have been nothing more than a stalling tactic giving them justification for freezing payouts for an unspecified period of time.

It goes on, and has happened again since, and these were not rogue operators, but well regarded ones.

(It's a long thread).

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

4) The danger of incorrect information being stored and shared in a central database with no proper right to have incorrect data removed or corrected.

https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

Apart from the last one, what is the relevance of all this to KYC?

Your post needs its own thread (and own postcode in most cases)

 

[vinylweatherman]

Apart from the last one, what is the relevance of all this to KYC?

Your post needs its own thread (and own postcode in most cases)

It's in this thread as this is where my statements have been branded as "outlandish", so I spent over an hour with the lamentable search facility, succeeding in finding a mere fraction of the examples I remember to illustrate the material that underpins many of my "outlandish" statements.

Maybe I should write a book

 

[Nifty29]

It's in this thread as this is where my statements have been branded as "outlandish", so I spent over an hour with the lamentable search facility, succeeding in finding a mere fraction of the examples I remember to illustrate the material that underpins many of my "outlandish" statements.

Maybe I should write a book

The reason your comments were, quite rightly, labelled outlandish is because you were generalizing about all casinos I.e. you said "the industry".

Presenting a couple of specific issues means nothing....just that some specific operators said specific things.

You're happy to hold them up as firm evidence of "how the industry thinks", yet you give people like Igor no credit at all for the way THEY do things.

If you shifted your focus away from your need for others to think you're a genius, and got behind the positive things that are happening in the industry, your posts might become more readable, and certainly more reasonable.

 

[kavaman]

Different casinos have different set of terms and different set of bonuses. I believe many legit players would get to the "bad" pool, for getting lucky at some of the member casinos of such a database for winning. For example player wins within a few of the first deposits with the use of a bonus. Casino puts the player into the "bad" database, and the player is now being thought as an advantage player or even worse. Similar situations would happen to many players. The casino deciding that the player is trying to milk them for advantage even though that might have not been the case.
Another casino would have possibly thought that the player was just lucky, but as they are in the "database" , casinos wouldnt offer them any bonuses, or possibly wouldnt even let the player play anymore.

Kyc. database would be an ok idea, so that players wouldnt have to send their documents to every casino they wish to play at. Maybe the database could ask for documents of players a few times a year, so that casinos in the program would have updated documents on hand all the time. However imagine such database to get hacked. That would be murder... ;(

 

[Jasminebed]

Firstly, let me thank Igor for taking time to read my lenghty post. From his response:

Another prominent CM member actually just won quite a hefty sum - i cant disclose his gameplay but he in fact BREACHED one of my terms which states that the bet cant drop below 50% of the winning bet.

Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from your terms, but Rule 12.4.3 states high value HANDs, and term 12.4.4. refers to games with a weighting of 30% or less, so I never considered that slot play might be subject to it. While I might feel comfortable betting $4 a spin on Megadeath (if I want to win $25 I pretty much need to), it would be suicidal to play Break da Bank again at $2.70 a spin.

There is a 20% of real money bankroll term too. I think such terms should be based on deposit amount, something clear that doesn't vary. If I deposit $20, then my bets are limited to $1.60. If I lose that first bet, I need to lower my bet accordingly? What about when I'm down to 17 cents? If you want to let that $20 depositor increase their bets as their bankroll increases, just change the term to 20% of initial bankroll or current balance, whichever is greater.

I thought if I was playing with my real money portion of my bankroll that I was free to do what I liked with it?

As a slot player, I hope EACH and EVERY bet that it will dramatically increase my bankroll. Currently slot bonuses limit bets while playing to 10 units of the chosen currency, at least towards completing wagering.

I also appreciate the fact that you've increased that limit from $8 to $10. I know I suggested an increase to you, because many games (including some of my favs) offer $9 bets but not $8, both 9 and 30 lines or 30cent bet ones.

Some of the games provided don't offer a lot of choices for bets. It's a big jump from $1.60 to $4 on megadeath for instance.

It's nice to feel you are listening, and that you can use discretion for rules violations.

But there are some very successful casinos that don't seem to go under with AP players without such easy to breach terms, or difficult to interpret.

Honestly, if term 12.4.3 applies to slot play (bets, not hands), I'd rather not risk playing. There's many casinos I haven't joined because I thought rules were too unclear or too restrictive.

 

[Igor82]

Honestly, if term 12.4.3 applies to slot play (bets, not hands), I'd rather not risk playing. There's many casinos I haven't joined because I thought rules were too unclear or too restrictive.

Thanks for pointing that out Jazzy and i'll change that - yes, it does mean slots too. It does because it happens often that huge deposits take up the max bonus ofer we have on some affiliate site that claims they bring VIP's through their marketing offers, gets sussed out by a syndicate and before i know it i have 20-40 specific region players spinning 20-50e hands on a slot. The few of them that extract thir 10-20k wins drop the hand value to 1e-3e immediately.

If i didnt implement max bet which i have recently (after the terms were coined) that term would be the only thing that protects my casino from a 60k cashout and it was the only thing that kept us alive after a number of those hits. Again, we only learned how to phrase it after loosing our first 30k, then realising it's not an accident when repeating it with another 50 and could not for the life of us figure out how come it's always at the same time... so innocent on our part looking back at it

Now you may find that too risky to play with that term in place and i respect your decision - that said, there's another player here cashing out 4 figures that hasn't even been made aware of this 'breach'. his bets ranged between 1c and 3e. I would have to be working against my own business to enforce a terms obviously used to serve a purpose (be applied in apparent cases) onto a player whose bet size changes every few hands together with his game... AP's may have made us more rigorous, but to slip on a one-size-fits-all ruleset will damage us in the process as much as it will protect us and i think that's where the truly accredited shine here: their ability to recognise a situation, not apply the rule.

EDIT: Worth a mention that since bonuses don't tie in real money at all, so any rule I apply to bonus funds, seeing as it bears no effect on your deposited funds, is "fair game" in my eyes as long as i clearly explain it. So yes, you are free to bet 100% of your real money bankroll when playing real. In bonus terms i should change that to deposited bankroll but the reason i didnt was because i didnt want to alienate someone that increased his bankroll to a few thousand and now want s to be higher. I never though it inadvertently affects a losing player more (because i never indented to enforce it to such extreme detail) - it does need a rethink/reword so i'll get on that shortly.

Igor

 

[incrediblestuff]

Firstly, let me thank Igor for taking time to read my lenghty post. From his response:



Unfortunately, I can't cut and paste from your terms, but Rule 12.4.3 states high value HANDs, and term 12.4.4. refers to games with a weighting of 30% or less, so I never considered that slot play might be subject to it. While I might feel comfortable betting $4 a spin on Megadeath (if I want to win $25 I pretty much need to), it would be suicidal to play Break da Bank again at $2.70 a spin.

There is a 20% of real money bankroll term too. I think such terms should be based on deposit amount, something clear that doesn't vary. If I deposit $20, then my bets are limited to $1.60. If I lose that first bet, I need to lower my bet accordingly? What about when I'm down to 17 cents? If you want to let that $20 depositor increase their bets as their bankroll increases, just change the term to 20% of initial bankroll or current balance, whichever is greater.

I thought if I was playing with my real money portion of my bankroll that I was free to do what I liked with it?

As a slot player, I hope EACH and EVERY bet that it will dramatically increase my bankroll. Currently slot bonuses limit bets while playing to 10 units of the chosen currency, at least towards completing wagering.

I also appreciate the fact that you've increased that limit from $8 to $10. I know I suggested an increase to you, because many games (including some of my favs) offer $9 bets but not $8, both 9 and 30 lines or 30cent bet ones.

Some of the games provided don't offer a lot of choices for bets. It's a big jump from $1.60 to $4 on megadeath for instance.

It's nice to feel you are listening, and that you can use discretion for rules violations.

But there are some very successful casinos that don't seem to go under with AP players without such easy to breach terms, or difficult to interpret.

Honestly, if term 12.4.3 applies to slot play (bets, not hands), I'd rather not risk playing. There's many casinos I haven't joined because I thought rules were too unclear or too restrictive.

Thanks for pointing that out Jazzy and i'll change that - yes, it does mean slots too. It does because it happens often that huge deposits take up the max bonus ofer we have on some affiliate site that claims they bring VIP's through their marketing offers, gets sussed out by a syndicate and before i know it i have 20-40 specific region players spinning 20-50e hands on a slot. The few of them that extract thir 10-20k wins drop the hand value to 1e-3e immediately.

If i didnt implement max bet which i have recently (after the terms were coined) that term would be the only thing that protects my casino from a 60k cashout and it was the only thing that kept us alive after a number of those hits. Again, we only learned how to phrase it after loosing our first 30k, then realising it's not an accident when repeating it with another 50 and could not for the life of us figure out how come it's always at the same time... so innocent on our part looking back at it

Now you may find that too risky to play with that term in place and i respect your decision - that said, there's another player here cashing out 4 figures that hasn't even been made aware of this 'breach'. his bets ranged between 1c and 3e. I would have to be working against my own business to enforce a terms obviously used to serve a purpose (be applied in apparent cases) onto a player whose bet size changes every few hands together with his game... AP's may have made us more rigorous, but to slip on a one-size-fits-all ruleset will damage us in the process as much as it will protect us and i think that's where the truly accredited shine here: their ability to recognise a situation, not apply the rule.

useful Q's and A's!

On that note, i urge everyone that has an interest in the topic of bonus-implementation and abuse read this 49 page-long thread that was dug up by VWm a few posts back, it really is informative, and i myself had not read it yet: i am glad i did.

It's useful both for players and operators.
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/captain-cooks-group-in-trouble.7596/

 

[vinylweatherman]

The reason your comments were, quite rightly, labelled outlandish is because you were generalizing about all casinos I.e. you said "the industry".

Presenting a couple of specific issues means nothing....just that some specific operators said specific things.

You're happy to hold them up as firm evidence of "how the industry thinks", yet you give people like Igor no credit at all for the way THEY do things.

If you shifted your focus away from your need for others to think you're a genius, and got behind the positive things that are happening in the industry, your posts might become more readable, and certainly more reasonable.

I cannot list specific casinos unless using examples to illustrate. However, the "industry" is what it is, there is no authority to enforce moral and ethical standards, so ALL casinos are part of this mix. It is individual casinos that step forward and prove that they are not "like all the rest", however there are also casinos that having stepped forward and earned the trust of players, decide to "turn bad" and abuse that trust to the max. It is impossible to say that a particular casino is so trustworthy that they will never turn bad, as the Captain Cooks example demonstrates.

When you see good casinos turn bad, or casinos deliberately lying and scamming for profit, year in and year out, whilst the regulators largely sit back and let it happen, you start to distrust the entire industry, even fearing to enter what appear to be the truly outstanding casinos.

In all that long thread, Captain Cooks refused to say what they meant by "suspicious wagering", but the consensus seems to be that it was not underhand at all, just players sticking to the terms, but those terms not properly protecting the casino from making a steady loss.

 

[Igor82]

I cannot list specific casinos unless using examples to illustrate. However, the "industry" is what it is, there is no authority to enforce moral and ethical standards, so ALL casinos are part of this mix. It is individual casinos that step forward and prove that they are not "like all the rest", however there are also casinos that having stepped forward and earned the trust of players, decide to "turn bad" and abuse that trust to the max. It is impossible to say that a particular casino is so trustworthy that they will never turn bad, as the Captain Cooks example demonstrates.

When you see good casinos turn bad, or casinos deliberately lying and scamming for profit, year in and year out, whilst the regulators largely sit back and let it happen, you start to distrust the entire industry, even fearing to enter what appear to be the truly outstanding casinos.

In all that long thread, Captain Cooks refused to say what they meant by "suspicious wagering", but the consensus seems to be that it was not underhand at all, just players sticking to the terms, but those terms not properly protecting the casino from making a steady loss.

32Red, Betsson are first two that come to mind that have had a very strict and fair way going about their business, built a powerful revenue model and did not falter in their player approach with their growth and years. You do forget that this entire topic is oriented around the rapid growth of defrauding on player level happening in this industry and you in your statements start from the premise these examples are just operators turning bad out of sheer greed and spite?

Fact of the matter is, no one just gets bored of making money. If they work well and service well, they continue to do so unless drastic shift in the operations happens.

Casinos, like any business - but more exposed to loss than others, make mistakes, overstep their marketing, under do their fraud and get burned out by PLAYERS just as often as they do by management. If i didn't have the shareholder backing i have (B&M operations) i would be one of those biting the dust myself. Beween a 185K 300 shields win thanks to my supplier offering game exposures worthy of Betsson, and a Danish and Netherlands Syndication that hit us and our infant T&C's in the first 6 months, i was over 400k down right from the starting line.

Thank god for the backing we've had because that's not something you survive normally at the start. And lest we forget that that 400k+ dent in my float operating budget was contributed in over 50% by FRAUDULENT COLLUDING SYNDICATE that maximised on dozens of bonuses while i sat there tumb up my bum )) wondering how on earth are we so unlucky. We weren't unlucky - we were UNPREPARED to handle a type of player that finds a new infant casino that's trying to compete and get its name out with the big boys by offering bonuses and thinks they know it all. Did we pay? yeah we did, but my T&C's learned too.

And above is fine. It happens - but to label the 'industry' as good casinos turning bad and thivery incorporated - without offering a modicum of responsibility of WHY your KYC protocols in 2004 were next to non-existent vs DNA worthy checks in 2013, and not accepting that it IS syndication and our charge-back friend example that contributed to that - is to simply be blissfully one-sided to the issue.

You made some very valid points, and all can see that you indeed have much to say with a substantial level of factual research and quality to your statement. However i do think in that know-it-all process your focus got so twisted toward us "the enemy" you forgot its a place you choose to spend you free time, with people who try their very hardest to give you the service they feel you deserve and they can only hope they in fact meet your expectations.

THOSE are the people that service your every bet and pay your every withdrawal, that deserve your respect and a note in your statements when you rain on the industry as a whole.

 

[Jasminebed]

If a player is breaching the term of dropping bets more than 50%, he needs to be made aware of a terms violation, especially if it applies to real money play, not bonus play.

Redbet not too long ago paid some winnings which violated their max bet policy, but the player was informed of breach and told "don't do it again".

I think when rules that can be used to void winnings are in place, you are at real risk that WILL happen.

50% drop is pretty draconian. I'm about 95% sure I violated this rule as it now stands my first time out, in fact probably more than once. At one point I made a bet which was all of my remaining real funds and part bonus, a bet which won and I had real cash again. I went back and re-read my post, and it was in fact on Megadeath at $4.00. I absolutely know all my remaining play that session was not at least $2 a spin.

And I wrote:

Anxious to get through it, I went to one of my favourites, Reel Thunder, and just about lost it all, with barely a line win or three scatters. Desperate (and tired after about 7 hours of gaming) I upped my bet to $4.50 when I was down to about $30, and made a few modest wins, just to keep me playing. With under $25 left, I hit a nice win of over $300, followed almost immediately with another of around $170, and then $94 to leave me a balance of over $550! What a comeback, only around 5% of wagering left.

Moonshine actually played reasonably quickly, and I met the wagering.

Now I'm not in any violation of 20% of deposit, a term clearly stated. It was my failure to understand that I could withdraw early that didn't leave me cashing out $250, not trying to "win" that $25 bonus I received. But $4.50 is close to it. Some slots without bonus rounds can be played at higher stakes without killing bankroll on occasion. $2 bets are not exactly grinding out a WR in most cases.

12.4.3 -- still refers to hands

I see you already made changes. 12.4.2 now refers to bets, but 12.4.3 still refers to hands.

I know there are a lot of slot players that will take the occasional big or bigger bet when up (or frankly, when down a lot), and revert to more modest stakes, or play different slots at different bet sizes.

So far you have gained my respect, and I feel you listen to players and don't intend to apply such rules on every available opportunity for the casual player.

But picture Igor winning EuroMillions lottery. He may no longer be with Bet-at. And who knows what principles someone new might bring to the casino?

I understand your need to protect from APs. I'm sure with some work your terms can reflect your intentions.

Just like a grocery store that offers a "loss leader", or a restaurant that offers a free coffee for a week or so no purchase necessary, you need to factor in those customers that will come for just the special, and not buy breakfast or other items as well.

I'd suggest that if you want to limit real money play against APs, that terms read "while a bonus is active" rather than as it stands now.

But I'd be so distressed if I had a big win on a $5 bet on a day my deposit was only $20, and kept on playing say IM at $1.50 a spin to find winnings confiscated.

"Big" "Substantial" and "High Value" are subject terms IMO.

Keep working at it please, I'm sure you will manage terms that reflect your intentions but still offer your casino the protection it needs.

 

[Igor82]

Thanks for that

I really took your notes to heart and i :notworthy to the objectivity of most of what you say - and can and am actively working on making it even more isolated without being "caught out" if you will.

Please afford us some small liberty to make it a bit vague-ish to ensure very clever AP's dont take it as a guideline to not do this, but ehhhh "lets DO THAT - their specifications don't cover it..." It's still a far cry from the "At casinos discretion" terms you see far and wide to this day. That said, i am going to try and try again until i feel we've reached a point where its complete and safe to all.

Just a note on me moving on - I left very cushy jobs to START this operation and while I have my shareholders, someone is going to have to pry me with a crowbar out of this seat and make me abandon my shares and Director responsibilities. It's important to keep a note of that to understand where my over-zealous approach is stemming from. I did leave to make a difference with my business approach, from some pretty rich and pretty set in stone places that freely adopted less than appeasing customer approach but could afford it due to their sports product monopoly and sheer size. I hope that counts for

T&C's i haven't changed yet - I'm actually working on those today and few other things to deploy tomorrow I do feel i need to make some things shorter, remove some other things, and ensure bonus terms are crystal (even though i felt they were before coming on here, as one might).

As for 50% drop - it is NOT a 50% drop in bet. I was looking at a 5K payout and hour ago actually, its open on my other screen and bet went up from 1.50 to 7.20 and down to 2.50. We're paying him because the winning hand was 1.50 on 300 shields and as such his subsequent bet increases and their drops had nothing to do with the play type the terms are aimed to protect me against.

If you read the terms closely I phrased them to my own detriment (of sorts) as they are as un-ambiguous as I could make them to the best of my capacity:

A user who wagers high value hands with the sole purpose of rapidly increasing bonus bankroll, then proceeds to drastically decrease their bet value(less than half) without having reasonably decreased their bankroll will be deemed to employing unnatural and advantageous betting patterns.

I honestly don't think i could specify it more than that. If you as a player fluctuate your bet, you aren't directly in breach, if your bets are low and your deposits low you also aren't in breach, if you bet high and remain betting high you aren't in breach, HOWEVER if you drastically drop your bet value without naturally decreasing your bankroll (as a normal player would) after you've started big (usually in conjunction to over 20% initiating bankroll term preceding it) - then you will pop up on radar. In fact the 20% term states we aren't going to necessarily anul your bet, but now we're watching you to see if you make any conjunction breaches.

I tried to classify it to a very specific play type. I may not have succeeded to the standard expected, but that's why we're here (BoF) and why we are listening.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink. I made sure i point it out however because while you say "draconian" i actually put in time and effort analysing different patterns and trying to formulate the terms to really isolate the AP's as much as possible without having my normal customers feeling too influenced. Something i apparently failed at.
Will fix tho... always willing

 

[vinylweatherman]

Ever thought of going "undercover" and finding out what the APs are about to launch whilst they are still discussing it?

Even looking at the terms with the mindset of the AP might reveal a potential loophole, and then you can start looking for players who might have spotted it.

 

[GrandMaster]

As for 50% drop - it is NOT a 50% drop in bet. I was looking at a 5K payout and hour ago actually, its open on my other screen and bet went up from 1.50 to 7.20 and down to 2.50. We're paying him because the winning hand was 1.50 on 300 shields and as such his subsequent bet increases and their drops had nothing to do with the play type the terms are aimed to protect me against.

If you read the terms closely I phrased them to my own detriment (of sorts) as they are as un-ambiguous as I could make them to the best of my capacity:

I honestly don't think i could specify it more than that. If you as a player fluctuate your bet, you aren't directly in breach, if your bets are low and your deposits low you also aren't in breach, if you bet high and remain betting high you aren't in breach, HOWEVER if you drastically drop your bet value without naturally decreasing your bankroll (as a normal player would) after you've started big (usually in conjunction to over 20% initiating bankroll term preceding it) - then you will pop up on radar. In fact the 20% term states we aren't going to necessarily anul your bet, but now we're watching you to see if you make any conjunction breaches.

I tried to classify it to a very specific play type. I may not have succeeded to the standard expected, but that's why we're here (BoF) and why we are listening.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink. I made sure i point it out however because while you say "draconian" i actually put in time and effort analysing different patterns and trying to formulate the terms to really isolate the AP's as much as possible without having my normal customers feeling too influenced. Something i apparently failed at.
Will fix tho... always willing

Instead of sweating too much about players raising and dropping bet sizes, just accept that some people will win. Spend your time and effort on catching the fraudsters. The real smart adavantage players will keep betting large, so you won't catch them by your method. If you want to have rules for bet sizes, implement them in the software so that players don't get tripped up.

 

[Igor82]

Instead of sweating too much about players raising and dropping bet sizes, just accept that some people will win. Spend your time and effort on catching the fraudsters. The real smart adavantage players will keep betting large, so you won't catch them by your method. If you want to have rules for bet sizes, implement them in the software so that players don't get tripped up.

Frankly the term itself is outdated. Since then we built the WR multiplier so this term definitely needs a rethink.

We did

 

[vinylweatherman]

Actually, a "normal player" WOULD lower their bet size after a big win, it's responsible gambling 101 - don't blow it, try to withdraw it. They may also be trying games they haven't tried before, so may bet much lower to see what the game is like.

More telling of an AP would be to drop the bet and then stick a slot on autospin and then bugger off to watch TV. You would see them clearly at the PC making the big bets, then the bets would decrease markedly followed by a very long session of autoplay on the same slot at the same stake, stopping very close to the minimum required WR.

Some software changes could disrupt this, such as having something happen to check whether or not the session is attended whilst in autospin, and if not, log it out. Not something that a mouse macro could cope with, but something like a challenge, such as having to read an instruction and follow it to avoid the session being terminated.

 

[Igor82]

Ever thought of going "undercover" and finding out what the APs are about to launch whilst they are still discussing it?

Even looking at the terms with the mindset of the AP might reveal a potential loophole, and then you can start looking for players who might have spotted it.

For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO

 

[Nifty29]

For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO

Fairness and common sense 101 Igor.

I think more reps should spend time at beatingboners and actually learn something..."know thine enemy".

 

[Igor82]

I think more reps should spend time at beatingboners

Beatingboners Nifty?

Thanks btw

 

[Nifty29]

Beatingboners Nifty?

Thanks btw

Well it's an accurate description of what goes on there, and I like to be accurate

 

[vinylweatherman]

For a while i lived on beatingbonuses - that's how i deduced the 3 main rules:

1. change of table to slot (aka massive table hands on low marging ames to boost bonus balance, followed by minimal bet grind to ensure RTP)
2. massive bet's on large deposits and highly volatile games (over 10-20% dep bankroll usually taken with multiple dep offers or 200% match) to hit a 3-500x + payout and increase bonus balance. That's usually done as a colluding syndicate tactic as it works as a guarantee with multiple bonnies across the group.
3. followed by last one: drastic drop in bet value to conserve as much of boni bankroll as possible.

Note that both 1 and 2 work with massive drop in bet value after huge portion of the bankroll being gambled initially which is why our terms are phrased as such.

Those are the general ones, then there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds. Those we caught as we'd have players come in groups take a SUB, play it on large spins over a few hundred hands, dep real 20 (not take a second sub) place cents to a hand and hit few K round with real funds. We excluded those games from boni's eventually.

I hear what you write and i agree - but we had to make a decision so we did this one: segregate real and bonus. Digest that for me for a second and understand what that means to an average player not having to fear their deposit winnings being tied to some obscure rule because they had a bonus active even if they didn't use it.

Now, if bonus doesn't lock real money in, then it's fair play to put the rules we feel are suited when bonus money IS being used. If i don't invalidate your real money win irrelevant of your play style EVEN when boni is active (but bet is placed from real balance), then i retain the right to control the game play type when bets are placed from boni balance. Fair or no?

I see it as give and take. Since then, response has been positive on player level when they realise their deposits are free and unconditional even with increased bankroll potential, in return we expect that when player play with boni balance, to adhere to above conditions: if you start on 10 per hand chasing that payout, then aggregate hand average after that big win should be grater than 5 - aka sustain your bet reasonably. I dont impose that with your real money balance bet, even if you do have a boni - if you wnt to risk your wallet at 10 per hand, go for it and if you win, you can withdraw right away - there is no grind needed.

Given above - do you not think approach is fair on both ends to start with? yes there is room for improvement, and first step was designing a system that multiplies WR on SUB bonuses for large bets to manage strategy 2 (and partly strategy 1) and more is to come which is why i'm so open on here. Nothing is written in stone and learning curve is long for anyone.

i like some ideas - like after a number of same spins at the same spin rate (autoplay) float pops up to confirm you're still there - if spins continue being spun when a user should have had to close the float first before hitting spin again, we'd know its on autoplay.

Now with above said i am certain players will come forward and state they want the freedom to auto-play the games they want while they make their cup of tea without feeling they might be accused of breaching the terms.

There is always something someone will have a problem with That's the unfortunate truth - so the only real answer is to make it as close as possible with effort (system engineering for what you can control, T&C's are aren't overly general) and leave the rest to reasonable pragmatic approach on case by case basis for customers that system flags.

At least that's how it should be IMHO

By having an automatic log off if unattended, you are not necessarily accusing a player of anything, rather protecting them against their unattended account being messed about with by another household member. The APs don't just go to make a cuppa, they do something else for several hours, even leaving it on overnight whilst they have a sleep. It should be possible to set a timer on the float so that players who just leave for a short while never get to see it, and you should make it clear to all players that this float exists, and that it needs to be closed. It's a balance between annoying the recreational player and disrupting the APs good night's sleep through having to awaken every xx minutes to click a mouse. The float should appear in different positions each time at random so as to avoid the use of a simple mouse macro by the APs.

there are specific game ones like some slots that give out bonus rounds after few hundred spins (you can almost time them) that pay out bonus round value based on the player bet average the game ingested between one bound round and another, instead of random bonus rounds.

I think you may have missed a few

The problem has been created by the game developers not taking into account the bonus system used by almost all of their clients. Short of not producing such games, they could have programmed them to calculate the payout as part real and part bonus funds based on the amount of bonus balance that lead to the bonus being triggered.

An example is "Tribal Treasure". It does not use average bets, but the bet at which a free spin is added to the counter. When the counter reaches 10, you get the spins, but no account is taken of whether each one was won with a real money or bonus balance bet. A simple tweak would be to pay any spin triggered by a bonus balance bet as bonus balance winnings.

Tomb Raider II can also be "done" like this, but I don't see it excluded in your terms

As for the drastic drop in bet value, you could use your idea for controlling big bets above a set max by making bets that drop too far subject to a lower, even zero, weighting in terms of meeting WR. This would make it impossible to "grind" the WR on autoplay unless the AP sets it to run on fairly sizeable bets, which I doubt most are prepared to do.

Although I might bet larger from the off than some others here, I tend to raise my bets after a big hit, not drop them right down to the min. I have turned decent hits into awesome payouts through doing this, although I have sometimes given back something I really should have withdrawn

 

[incrediblestuff]

The APs don't just go to make a cuppa, they do something else for several hours, even leaving it on overnight whilst they have a sleep

I actually do this too, and i am nowhere close to an AP, in fact, i would go as far as to be-title myself the wet dream of many Casino-Operators...

 

[Igor82]

Always valid points Vynil - keep going mate, i'm all ears

 

[Igor82]

By having an automatic log off if unattended, you are not necessarily accusing a player of anything, rather protecting them against their unattended account being messed about with by another household member. The APs don't just go to make a cuppa, they do something else for several hours, even leaving it on overnight whilst they have a sleep. It should be possible to set a timer on the float so that players who just leave for a short while never get to see it, and you should make it clear to all players that this float exists, and that it needs to be closed. It's a balance between annoying the recreational player and disrupting the APs good night's sleep through having to awaken every xx minutes to click a mouse. The float should appear in different positions each time at random so as to avoid the use of a simple mouse macro by the APs.

It would alienate and annoy too may people to try and catch an auto-play few. Auto play in its own right doesn't imply AP - game pattern does.

I think you may have missed a few

Not surprised

The problem has been created by the game developers not taking into account the bonus system used by almost all of their clients.

Cant control the games - just the way i credit and lock in bonus transactions. I'll check out the games you speak of though.

As for the drastic drop in bet value, you could use your idea for controlling big bets above a set max by making bets that drop too far subject to a lower, even zero, weighting in terms of meeting WR. This would make it impossible to "grind" the WR on autoplay unless the AP sets it to run on fairly sizeable bets, which I doubt most are prepared to do.

I'l alienate more in the process. So if a guy drops from 3e to 70p - the bets stop counting? and a VIP betting 50e on a deposit of 5k then changes the game with a max bet of 6 (IR) then what? It's a complex sensitive very fragile middle ground where you need to LOOK at the transactions and deduce the case on case-by-case basis.

It's impossible to automatise - i will retain 0.1% of my customer base as system is inhuman, calculating and unforgiving even to the minute margin for error. I need to and did create and obvious deterrent: bet size cap and now T&C's are there to catch the rest and be applied on case by case basis which is why i hire human, thinking individuals. I don't feel safe adopting system forced changes across the board. Max bet is an easy one to understand - you don't cross the max bet or the WR increases. If the system starts taking bet drops into consideration the complication will be so confusing to the wide audience i feel it will be counter-productive.

 

[Przecinek]

I prefer bonuses that have no WR but disappear when you request a withdrawal. Just like Stargames that is also going trough baptism right now or 7red for that matter. Another option are cashbacks with no WR.

BTW: Have to agree max bet seems way more simple than percentages and then drops which means percentages derived from percetages. Many people might be: this is too complicated and also create an impression that casino is being too scrupulous in making sure that bonuses cannot give the player any advantage = impression that casino is not sufficiently funded or something (although to me, the only thing that matters is the number of complains rather than t&c).

Oh and one more thing, nothing uncommon in my case in dropping the bet size if I realize that I have already wagered 2000 and there's only 200 left to meet WR and I consider myself an average gambler.

 

[Nifty29]

Always valid points Vynil - keep going mate, i'm all ears

Don't encourage him Igor.

I'm surprised you don't already know about these tricks, especially after being at bleatingboners. Its all "old hat"...there's nothing new here.

 

[hakapuku]

Ok Igor , I think I understand your intentions. Your casino is relatively new. When a new casino comes out today
with a bonus offering (and as you pointed before- you have no choice but to offer it)- then there come
all the AP's and fraudsters of the world to play with your bonus. They attack your bank accounts in thousands just as the ancient mongols
attacked their neighbours and you start to hate them. Now , if only you had an access to, let's say , Fortune lounge's database of fraudsters (which
is at least 15 years old and contains an information about millions of AP's and fraudsters) - that would let your business to survive all those attacks!
But what benefits will Fortune Lounge get from that "shared database" ? They know all the fraudsters you have on your list since those were
kids. So why will they need this cooperation ? And moreover, if you (or your shareholders) close your casino because of losses- they will be only
happier since you are their direct competitor.

 

[Igor82]

Ok Igor , I think I understand your intentions. Your casino is relatively new. When a new casino comes out today
with a bonus offering (and as you pointed before- you have no choice but to offer it)- then there come
all the AP's and fraudsters of the world to play with your bonus. They attack your bank accounts in thousands just as the ancient mongols
attacked their neighbours and you start to hate them. Now , if only you had an access to, let's say , Fortune lounge's database of fraudsters (which
is at least 15 years old and contains an information about millions of AP's and fraudsters) - that would let your business to survive all those attacks!
But what benefits will Fortune Lounge get from that "shared database" ? They know all the fraudsters you have on your list since those were
kids. So why will they need this cooperation ? And moreover, if you (or your shareholders) close your casino because of losses- they will be only
happier since you are their direct competitor.

Very valid point and yes - they don't need to help the competition. But they will fall behind it if the player demand becomes high enough.

It will always be hard to bring in the giants. They're set, they work ,they have to do something really drastic to destabilise that self-running engine they've created. Those are not the first people you bring in however, they may not benefit from my database alone, but they will benefit from easier ID access of customers, as well as dozen of databases and communal minds working together to share their experiences and learnings.

Fraudsters improve with time. This is a fact. Rules and safeguards of yesterday may not be the ones of tomorrow. Frequently are not if ID threads and topics are anything to go by. While a massive databse would be a bonus, it s a question if it falls under the criteria stipulated, how ancient those rules are and how were those customers classified.

one business operation is unique to the operating structure and policies of that business alone. This (in its ideal) is a transparent, mutually agreed, criteria driven conglomerate of suppliers you trust that, like on this forum players do, will challenge each other as much as they challenge the fraud/AP community. Bottom line and aim is to work together to make ID checks and welcome process easier and more secure ON REGISTRATION, not withdrawal, and we can only do that if we already know the fraud status of that customer before hand. We may not know their status for sure but we can with a fair certainty (for example) for hakapuku say that: ID1145, member of 3 operators in the group, opened one-check-id 17 months ago, no flags (points 0, say - hey, welcome dep limts, wd limits, scrutny and all are raised to a much safer level, because we feel safer that we 'kind of know you' even if we haven't transacted with you yet.

members of that ID community will benefit from more beneficial welcome process and they will feel respected and not scrutinised multiple times. With enough mid-tier operators that cover a sufficient market it could become 'the thing' - as in : "why are you bothering with all that scrutiny? - get one check and there's 15 accredited places to play at where you are sure to find what you are looking for"

now add time and 15 becomes 30-50-... it will become mainstream by players themselves who have simply be given a tool to have their quality recognised at registration by sheer duration of their membership. You awant to try that new casino with this new system that looks interesting? well they have one-check and you feel almost already a member, you just know they had to meet certain standards and that you wont have the level of scrutiny and limitations you would have otherwise.

The giants will come last because the players will eventually demand it. All you need is a tool you trust.

 

[Igor82]

Don't encourage him Igor.

I'm surprised you don't already know about these tricks, especially after being at bleatingboners. Its all "old hat"...there's nothing new here.

ROFL.. with all your battering the guy needs a bit of encouragement as for the tricks i do know quite a few, but no - haven't tried and tested every game 'trick' and every try. frankly, not enough hours in day to beat them at their own game. They are organised, smart and calculating and we need to beat each one of the 'systems' that they uncover and prove works before getting pummelled, while giving the better-than-the next experience for all the honest lot.

"At our discretion" is a miraculously lovely term which like fraudsters affected us, rogues affected you and abused it so we now suffer. If every casino you ever played at ustilised their discretion honestly, you;d never get bothered about it in the first place - so i guess the blame falls back on the operator lol.

Way to shoot my own foot after all this thread, but its sadly true :/

 

[vinylweatherman]

ROFL.. with all your battering the guy needs a bit of encouragement as for the tricks i do know quite a few, but no - haven't tried and tested every game 'trick' and every try. frankly, not enough hours in day to beat them at their own game. They are organised, smart and calculating and we need to beat each one of the 'systems' that they uncover and prove works before getting pummelled, while giving the better-than-the next experience for all the honest lot.

"At our discretion" is a miraculously lovely term which like fraudsters affected us, rogues affected you and abused it so we now suffer. If every casino you ever played at ustilised their discretion honestly, you;d never get bothered about it in the first place - so i guess the blame falls back on the operator lol.

Way to shoot my own foot after all this thread, but its sadly true :/

Have a look at Scrooge, and you will remember my early question as to why you banned slots like Double Magic and Fantastic 7's, yet didn't think you needed to ban Scrooge like other operators have done.

I suspect many tricks are not on Beatingbonuses, not even on the private forum (did you manage to crack this?).

Even the "old" tricks can catch out a new operator, even though the old guard have wised up to them.