Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 11:34:34 AM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: BetSoft Non-Payment of Jackpot  (Read 17212 times)
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2016, 07:28:18 AM
 #161

You seem to know a lot of information about betcoin.  Some of the things you are stating might only be known by someone who is on the inside working for betcoin.  Can you please explain your relationship with betcoin?  If you do work for betcoin stop wasting your time with these replies and answer my questions.  Betcoin would not be getting their reputation tarnished if they had just been straightforward and transparent.  This has never been my intention, and I am not looking to extort money from them.  If these questions had all been answered upfront in an honest way betcoin's reputation would have remained intact.  By digging in your heels and refusing to answer the questions you and betcoin (if in fact those are two different things) are just adding fuel to the fire and digging the hole you are in deeper.  People only evade and refuse to answer questions when telling the truth would expose something that they don't want exposed.  If Betcoin has nothing to hide and they were acting in my best interest all along I welcome them to prove it to me and to the forum by responding to my questions.  If you do I will be satisfied, and would no longer need to post to the forums looking for answers.  I only post here because I have gotten nowhere on Betcoin's site either publicly or privately.

I got dragged into this mess when your bad stance allowed creation of bullying and threatening atmosphere from competing casino affiliates/members/owners towards
members of betcoin.ag campaign.

So not only are the ones that enabled you to atleast get the settlement with betsoft on basis of nothing more than an oversight, an error, but also all others that
have nothing to do with the whole situation are being attacked.

You keep talking about dismissing the questions while i try to answer as much of them as i can, while at the same time you keep avoiding
only one i'm asking you; Do you honestly think betcoin.ag is a scam site?



OK.  I will be civil and I will answer your question first.  Do I think it is an outright scam?  No more than any other casino (the house always has the edge).  Do I think that they put profit ahead of players?  Absolutely.  Am I currently comfortable wagering there?  No.  The reason that I have not wagered there since settling is this is because in order to be comfortable I need to have my questions that I have asked them answered.  I need to understand their relationship with their software providers.  I want to understand who is ultimately responsible for paying me if I win.  Now let me ask you a question, and please do me the courtesy of answering it.  If this spin had happened in a brick and mortar casino in las vegas regulated by a legitimate gaming authority and I hit five yachts on the payline would the casino have had to pay me the jackpot?

Here is an answer:

Garrett GRIGGS and Stephen Livaudais v. HARRAH'S CASINO, Jazz Casino Corporation and IGT, Incorporated.
No. 2005-CA-0321.


"1.   A progressive slot machine is a machine that is linked by computer to similar slot machines in other casinos.   Each linked slot machine contributes money from that machine to a single jackpot, which is called a progressive jackpot.   The progressive jackpot is much larger than any jackpot a single slot machine could pay.   Often the manufacturer of the progressive slot machines is the owner of the machines and is responsible for paying the progressive jackpots that are won.   In the instant case, IGT manufactured and owned the Wheel of Fortune slot machine and was responsible for paying any progressive jackpots won on that machine."  ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1080167.html#footnote_ref_1 )

Read the case citation for further details.
1571657674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571657674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571657674
Reply with quote  #2

1571657674
Report to moderator
1571657674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571657674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571657674
Reply with quote  #2

1571657674
Report to moderator
1571657674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571657674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571657674
Reply with quote  #2

1571657674
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571657674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571657674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571657674
Reply with quote  #2

1571657674
Report to moderator
1571657674
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571657674

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571657674
Reply with quote  #2

1571657674
Report to moderator
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 01, 2016, 07:46:50 AM
 #162

No, the question becomes in what jurisdiction was the server located at the time the contract was signed....negligence has nothing to do with it.  And, Betcoin was the mediator in this action between jasonort and Betsoft which complicates the matter to another degree which further justifies the decision to negotiate a settlement rather then litigate the action.

CloudFlare isn't Betcoin's server. They intercept incoming traffic and then let it through to Betcoin's server or don't if they think it represents a threat. Besides, CloudFlare has wisely written a loophole into their TOS:

Quote
SECTION 12: INDEMNITY

You agree to indemnify and hold CloudFlare, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, arising out of your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of the Terms of Service, or your violation of any rights of another.

The argument isn't with CloudFare....the jurisdictional argument is "where was the server located which precipitated the signing of the contract on the date it was signed."  The location of the server in which the contract was signed establishes a jurisdictional claim.  It's a holding that is clearly established in international law and is the reason why different jurisdictions have the right to claim peoples private information contained with the cloud if that information passed thru servers within their jurisdictions.
Most contracts have a clause that says something along the lines that if there is a dispute over a contract that a certain court will have jurisdiction over a lawsuit about the contract. If this is the case, then both parties would have consented for the particular court to have jurisdiction over the parties regarding that contract.

If the above did not happen, then in order for a court to have jurisdiction over a lawsuit, then one of the parties either needs to have assets in the location of the court, be physically located in the location of the court or regularly conduct business in the location of the court. If someone receives judgment in a jurisdiction in which assets are not located, then generally speaking a second lawsuit will need to be filed in a jurisdiction where assets are located in order to collect on the judgment.

Regardless of where a lawsuit would need to be filed, I do not care about what Judge Judy says about the case. The bottom line is that I view both betcoin's and betsoft's actions and business practices to be unfair, including their jackpot practices. To me, based on my independent research, and based on what betcoin has publicly stated, I believe that Jason should have received the full amount of the Jackpot.

The cost of litigating any dispute is always very expensive. A lot of the time, the entity with the larger budget for litigation is going to win because the other party will simply run out of money. Litigation is also going to be a wast of money/time if the party you are suing does not have assets period or does not have assets in a jurisdiction that will enforce a judgment in this kind of case.  

I agree that the best resolution to this problem was in mediation, for many reasons.  The fact that a mediation process had even been considered is commendable because it would have been a "nasty" process otherwise.  There have been several similar instances with "brick and mortar" casinos regarding outsourced progressive jackpots and liability.  I have included two below as reference.  I included them because they are cases involving some of the largest providers in the industry which had gone through multiple levels of review.  I cited them here only as a reference to the complexity of the issue in the hopes that some of the dicta contained therein may be helpful.

(Arguments that demonstrate liability for outsourced progressives.)

Garrett GRIGGS and Stephen Livaudais v. HARRAH'S CASINO, Jazz Casino Corporation and IGT, Incorporated.
No. 2005-CA-0321.


"1.   A progressive slot machine is a machine that is linked by computer to similar slot machines in other casinos.   Each linked slot machine contributes money from that machine to a single jackpot, which is called a progressive jackpot.   The progressive jackpot is much larger than any jackpot a single slot machine could pay.   Often the manufacturer of the progressive slot machines is the owner of the machines and is responsible for paying the progressive jackpots that are won.   In the instant case, IGT manufactured and owned the Wheel of Fortune slot machine and was responsible for paying any progressive jackpots won on that machine."  ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1080167.html#footnote_ref_1 )

(Argument's that maybe in jasonort's favor against Betsoft.)


Supreme Court of Mississippi.  IGT v. Nancy KELLY.  No. 1998-CC-01783-SCT.  Decided: March 1, 2001

"¶ 25.   Accordingly, this Court finds the Harrison County Circuit Court was correct in affirming the Mississippi Gaming Commission's ruling, which found the Pokermania machine's signage to be ambiguous. We also conclude an administrative agency is not bound to follow authority in another jurisdiction and that the hearing examiner did not err by relying on a previous decision of the Mississippi Gaming Commission, which states ambiguity is to be resolved in favor of the patron.   The judgment of the Harrison County Circuit Court is affirmed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for entry of a judgment specifying the method of payment in accordance with applicable law." ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1440921.html )

These cases exemplify the complexity of the issues involved and demonstrate the value of the mediation process in trying to achieve an equitable resolution in this situation.

I would not say that either of those cases are in favor of BetCoin. Even if BetSoft is the entity who is legally required to payout a jackpot, it remains that it is BetCoin.ag who directed the customer to BetSoft, and it is BetCoin that, despite being very well aware of Betsoft's history, has decided to continue to send customers to BetSoft.

Regardless of the above, I do not care what the courts say (or would say) about the case. What I care about is what is fair, and if I think it is appropriate to trust BetCoin.ag in the future. If a website is sending people to a third party that has a history of not paying out it's obligations when it should, then yes, I would think that website is a scam.


Quote
I would not say that either of those cases are in favor of BetCoin. Even if BetSoft is the entity who is legally required to payout a jackpot, it remains that it is BetCoin.ag who directed the customer to BetSoft, and it is BetCoin that, despite being very well aware of Betsoft's history, has decided to continue to send customers to BetSoft.

Betsoft did not have a history of not paying.  They provided some of the most innovative slots in the industry and they have been a respected brand within the gaming community.  There has not been a history of Betsoft defaulting on it's obligations.

Quote
Regardless of the above, I do not care what the courts say (or would say) about the case. What I care about is what is fair, and if I think it is appropriate to trust BetCoin.ag in the future. If a website is sending people to a third party that has a history of not paying out it's obligations when it should, then yes, I would think that website is a scam.

I agree, if a website did send people to a third party that has a history of not paying out their obligations when they should, then I think that you would be justified in believing they are a scam.  But, in jasonort's case, there was payment, despite the fact that Betsoft didn't feel they were obligated to pay.  Betsoft disputed the interpretation of whether or not a "free spin" qualified as a "maximum bet" wager as stipulated in the rules and implemented in the coding of the software.  What was in question here was the interpretation of those conditions.

I brought up the case above to point out how outsourcing the progressive jackpots work; it's the only way to provide such large jackpots to the consumer.  It's a standard practice in the industry but there are situations that arise which are disputed, even among the most respected brands.  Consequently, Harrah's still uses IGT games....so do most US "brick and mortar" casinos which are highly regulated.

I might add that Betsoft is among the largest players in the online gaming industry; in fact, even casinolistings.com, which brought up the statistical claims against Betsoft, Bovada, and slots.lv, is reluctant to put them on their own blacklist until all the evidence is evaluated. (https://www.casinolistings.com/news/2016/07/betcoin-ag-betsoft-force-shafted-jackpot-winner-into-agreement#comment-48568)  Furthermore, casinolistings has a problem with ANY purely cryptocurrency based casino and none of the purely cryptocurrency based casinos found on this forum would meet their standards.

All I'm saying is that this incident is not as cut and dry as many of the competitor's shills would have it seem.  If jasonort hadn't settled, then we'd have had a better picture because things could have been decided in the resolution process.  But, as it stands, Betsoft paid a settlement, upon Betcoin's urging, that they didn't feel they had an obligation to pay.  Both parties, Betsoft and jasonort, had their own valid interpretation of the conditions of the game which could be argued.  However, I believe the casino would have prevailed in formal proceedings because it would have been difficult to prove that "free spin" == "max bet" in the common senses of the terms.  Consequently, to avoid future disputes, it was necessary that Betsoft clarify the conditions of the game at that point.

Now, if jasontort is still publicly claiming that he was wronged, then he needs to challenge the validity of his agreement with the proper authority.  In contrast to what has been claimed, there are venues that can be exhausted in the resolution of these type of disputes.

I am always on the players side and if I thought that a place I played at was scamming people out of their money, or allowing others to scam their patrons out of their money, then I'd be the first to stand up and cry foul; however, I do not feel that Betcoin.ag is trying to steal peoples money, nor have I seen any credible evidence that they have or may do so in the future.

I might add:  I don't know what to think about Betsoft at this point because they still have some explaining to do regarding the interpretation of the statistical analysis of the Bovada and slots.lv progressive jackpots.  Bovada and Slots.lv have common owners and casinolistings.com has some pretty far reaching interpretations of the data they collected, so something will break....I just don't know what....it could be misinterpreted data, could be bad casino owners, or it could be bad software providers.  It's not conclusive at this point.
CL-Ed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 09, 2016, 01:33:29 AM
 #163

Quote
Betsoft did not have a history of not paying.  They provided some of the most innovative slots in the industry and they have been a respected brand within the gaming community.  There has not been a history of Betsoft defaulting on it's obligations.

Why do shills for this company keep repeating this garbage about their "innovative" games and their "respect" within the industry and alluding to how they are such a big player etc? Its the most transparent and obvious marketing schtick and it is completely revisionist and false.

They are not the big player that they want everyone to believe they are. The major forces in this industry are the likes of Microgaming, Net Entertainment, Playtech (sadly), Novomatic, IGT and others. Betsoft are a bit part player at best, mostly used either by cheap casinos that don't have the funds to license the best software, or ones that want to accept American players that the major industry providers won't go near.

You want to talk about Betsoft's history? How about the time in 2010 when they were busted running a rigged Keno game? Or the time in 2014 when Alderney revoked their license to operate? Or the 9 month investigation that we did that revealed that they do in fact "have a history of not paying", specifically with unwinnable progressive jackpots. Those are facts, not marketing drivel.

Quote
I agree, if a website did send people to a third party that has a history of not paying out their obligations when they should, then I think that you would be justified in believing they are a scam.

Great, seeing as I have demonstrated this then you do agree that they are scammers.

Quote
I brought up the case above to point out how outsourcing the progressive jackpots work; it's the only way to provide such large jackpots to the consumer.

That may be the case if we were talking about a networked progressive that is shared amongst casinos. But we aren't. The jackpot that Jason was robbed of was specific to Betcoin. No other casino. So no, you're completely wrong when you say "it's the only way to provide such large jackpots to the consumer" because clearly, it isn't.

Quote
I might add that Betsoft is among the largest players in the online gaming industry; in fact, even casinolistings.com, which brought up the statistical claims against Betsoft, Bovada, and slots.lv, is reluctant to put them on their own blacklist until all the evidence is evaluated.

Wrong and wrong again. Did you even read what you linked to where I said "while we haven't written them up yet on the blacklist page, they are definitely going on there in short order"? Our blacklist page features Betsoft (and Betcoin too).

Quote
Furthermore, casinolistings has a problem with ANY purely cryptocurrency based casino and none of the purely cryptocurrency based casinos found on this forum would meet their standards.

This is again incorrect. We have a problem with unlicensed and unregulated casinos. The fact that almost all crypto casinos meet that definition probably leads to your misinterpretation. We like provably fair games and Bitcoin as a payment method is quick and cheap. Its great. But when the casino is not accountable to anyone and can just disappear overnight then I would not recommend playing there for the same reason I would not store BTC in an online wallet or exchange.
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2016, 02:07:42 AM
Last edit: August 09, 2016, 07:20:30 AM by cjmoles
 #164

Quote
Betsoft did not have a history of not paying.  They provided some of the most innovative slots in the industry and they have been a respected brand within the gaming community.  There has not been a history of Betsoft defaulting on it's obligations.

Why do shills for this company keep repeating this garbage about their "innovative" games and their "respect" within the industry and alluding to how they are such a big player etc? Its the most transparent and obvious marketing schtick and it is completely revisionist and false.

They are not the big player that they want everyone to believe they are. The major forces in this industry are the likes of Microgaming, Net Entertainment, Playtech (sadly), Novomatic, IGT and others. Betsoft are a bit part player at best, mostly used either by cheap casinos that don't have the funds to license the best software, or ones that want to accept American players that the major industry providers won't go near.

You want to talk about Betsoft's history? How about the time in 2010 when they were busted running a rigged Keno game? Or the time in 2014 when Alderney revoked their license to operate? Or the 9 month investigation that we did that revealed that they do in fact "have a history of not paying", specifically with unwinnable progressive jackpots. Those are facts, not marketing drivel.

Quote
I agree, if a website did send people to a third party that has a history of not paying out their obligations when they should, then I think that you would be justified in believing they are a scam.

Great, seeing as I have demonstrated this then you do agree that they are scammers.

Quote
I brought up the case above to point out how outsourcing the progressive jackpots work; it's the only way to provide such large jackpots to the consumer.

That may be the case if we were talking about a networked progressive that is shared amongst casinos. But we aren't. The jackpot that Jason was robbed of was specific to Betcoin. No other casino. So no, you're completely wrong when you say "it's the only way to provide such large jackpots to the consumer" because clearly, it isn't.

Quote
I might add that Betsoft is among the largest players in the online gaming industry; in fact, even casinolistings.com, which brought up the statistical claims against Betsoft, Bovada, and slots.lv, is reluctant to put them on their own blacklist until all the evidence is evaluated.

Wrong and wrong again. Did you even read what you linked to where I said "while we haven't written them up yet on the blacklist page, they are definitely going on there in short order"? Our blacklist page features Betsoft (and Betcoin too).

Quote
Furthermore, casinolistings has a problem with ANY purely cryptocurrency based casino and none of the purely cryptocurrency based casinos found on this forum would meet their standards.

This is again incorrect. We have a problem with unlicensed and unregulated casinos. The fact that almost all crypto casinos meet that definition probably leads to your misinterpretation. We like provably fair games and Bitcoin as a payment method is quick and cheap. Its great. But when the casino is not accountable to anyone and can just disappear overnight then I would not recommend playing there for the same reason I would not store BTC in an online wallet or exchange.

So, you do have purely cryptocurrency based casinos on your "whitelist?"  I couldn't find one.  However, it's nice to know that you endorse those cites that claim they're "provably fair" but I didn't see a single reference on your cite of you auditing any of their RNG software in order to validate that sweeping endorsement.

Anyway, I'm not going to take the time to refute the arguments about Betsofts products and comparing it to IGT because IGT is not in  the same market and MicroGaming shut it's doors to the United States many years ago.  But wasn't your study an in house limited scope statistical analysis that's open for interpretation?  Are you saying that your analysis shows irrefutably that Betsoft cheated? And, wasn't the 2010 incident related to rogue casinos and wasn't the exploit also advantageous to players as well, and weren't they using the Cereus "RNG?" (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/news-views-gossip-sponsored-online-poker-report/absolute-poker-keno-rigged-x-posted-nvg-zoo-898568/)   But as long as your relying on IGT as a reliable brand, haven't they had similar disputes? (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1080167.html)  

You claim that Betsoft has a history of non-payment but I couldn't find a single case....None of the occurrences you mentioned included a default of payment obligation by Betsoft.  What gives?

EDIT: And don't you think it's funny to place Betcoin on your blacklist for using Betsoft software when you yourself failed to blacklist the brand at the same time?  Have you blacklisted all the casinos you endorse that use the Betsoft software?  Are you sure you're not biased?

RE-EDIT:  Don't get me wrong; I'm not claiming that it's impossible, or even improbable, that Betsoft is not a legitimate brand, but what I AM saying is that the evidence is far from irrefutable, and your statistical analysis is of limited scope and open for interpretation.  The evidence is suspicious under certain interpretation but it's not enough to ruin honest peoples careers without further evidence.
Trayber
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 09, 2016, 04:43:17 AM
 #165


EDIT: And don't you think it's funny to place Betcoin on your blacklist for using Betsoft software when you yourself failed to blacklist the brand at the same time?  Have you blacklisted all the casinos you endorse that use the Betsoft software?  Are you sure you're not biased?

^^ This



I definitely don't agree with many of cjmoles comments but he brings up a very valid point and is something that should be addressed by Casino Listings Ed.

Why are you still willing to take affiliate money from many of the casinos you promote that primarily offer Betsoft games when in fact you know the evidence is to damning with the Bovada situation that they rig the progressive games.

BTW, I'm thankful for all the work you put in with your investigations but its hypocritical to continue to promote the Betsoft crooks on your site with casinos still operating their shady software.


CL-Ed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 09, 2016, 07:50:24 AM
Last edit: August 09, 2016, 08:21:14 AM by CL-Ed
 #166

Quote
So, you do have purely cryptocurrency based casinos on your "whitelist?"  I couldn't find one.  However, it's nice to know that you endorse those cites that claim they're "provably fair" but I didn't see a single reference on your cite of you auditing any of their RNG software in order to validate that sweeping endorsement.

I haven't endorsed anyone or anything. I have expressed my personal opinion to show you that we are not anti-crypto casino which was your statement. We don't have a "whitelist". We review casinos and rate them accordingly. The really bad ones that cheat their own customers get blacklisted, like Betcoin. Personally I would not play at any casino that we have rated less than 4 out of 5, and we tell people that on our review index page. You could consider that our whitelist if you want to.

We don't audit anyone's RNG. I don't know what you're trying to prove with that statement. The uselessness of Betsoft's RNG audit is a prime example of the potential advantage provably fair games have over games that have no auditing, testing, or regulation. However, provably fair games aren't a panacea. They don't stop on operator from disappearing with everyone's money for example. How can you on the one hand lambast us for being anti-crypto casinos, then have a go at me when I say I like the idea of provably fair games? Surely you're not being disingenuous and attempting to derail and obfuscate?

We have reviewed several SoftSwiss casinos that offer Bitcoin and currency play, and all are licensed and regulated. We haven't reviewed any crypto-only casinos for no particular reason other than we have an ongoing review list that takes time to process. We have a small staff and an endless list of casinos to get through (447 reviewed vs 1133 in our database). Again, you're making assumptions and saying ignorant things based on those assumptions that are completely wrong.

Quote
But wasn't your study an in house limited scope statistical analysis that's open for interpretation?

What does that statement even mean? It is pure unmitigated FUD meant to sow doubt in the mind of anyone reading this without actually saying anything of value. How would we do a study that wasn't "in house"? What about it was "limited scope"? Everything anyone ever says is "open for interpretation". I would love to hear your interpretation of the differences between the jackpots on the same game that we noted between Bovada and Slots.lv. What reasonable explanation do you have for the fact that they were unwinnable at Bovada? How can you explain all the games drastically changing their win frequency and going weeks without being won, then suddenly all of them suddenly being won and resuming their previous frequencies in synchronicity? Do enlighten us with your reasonable and plausible "interpretation".

Ultimately we have published our findings and people can make up their own minds, agree or disagree. The important thing is that the information is out there and the public is informed. I don't care if it upsets Betsoft and Betcoin shills like yourself. At the moment all you're doing is attacking me and our study but providing no rational alternative explanation. Its a time honoured tactic of deflection used by people who have something to hide and nothing of value to say.

Quote
But as long as your relying on IGT as a reliable brand, haven't they had similar disputes?

Feel free to point out anywhere that I said any company was reliable. You can't because I didn't. I cited companies that were regarded as "major forces" within this industry, i.e. most well known and influential. I certainly don't regard many of the major industry players as reliable. My point was that these companies actually occupy the position that Betsoft are trying to paint themselves as equivalent to when it is not the case to anyone with any significant industry knowledge. I maintain that Betsoft are a third rate software supplier, predominantly used by low rent casinos.

The fact that you are able to point to a documented legal case involving IGT says a lot, both about the benefits of companies being accountable to a regulator in a properly enforced jurisdiction, and your own nature of clutching at straws that devalue your own arguments. What recourse does Jason have in his case? Which court can he go to to get justice? Who even owns and operates Betsoft and/or Betcoin? What is their company name, the name of their directors, their address of operation? For goodness sake, that is the worst argument you have presented yet.

Quote
You claim that Betsoft has a history of non-payment but I couldn't find a single case

Making a jackpot impossible to win is equivalent to non payment, wouldn't you agree? Either way, someone gets ripped off and doesn't get paid what they should. Don't be asinine.

Quote
And don't you think it's funny to place Betcoin on your blacklist for using Betsoft software when you yourself failed to blacklist the brand at the same time?

Betsoft are blacklisted. We have detailed the reasons why. As are Betcoin. What does it matter if one was placed before the other? Both are there because they deserve to be. Betsoft because of the many issues we raised and Betcoin because of their failure to pay their player, the continued use of Betsoft games even after they know one of their own customers has been cheated, and their documented history of running pirated games. I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make on this, other than to again attack the messenger rather than the message. What is "funny" about us adding Betsoft to our blacklist a few days later than Betcoin? What exactly does that prove other than that I can be lazy and/or have many other things to do?

We are a site that reviews casinos and shares opinions. I am proud to be against software providers and casinos that rip players off. I would not have it any other way. If you think that is "bias" and that it is a bad thing then cool, I honestly think that you must be thick, but its your opinion nevertheless and you're entitled to it.

Quote
The evidence is suspicious under certain interpretation but it's not enough to ruin honest peoples careers without further evidence.

When you keep saying hyperbolic stuff like this it just looks more and more like you have significant skin in this game. Having a Betcoin logo in an effort to promote them is one thing but it appears to me that your involvement is more significant than that. I could not care less about anyone's career, and I'm not sure why you would care either unless you knew them, nor how you would know whether anyone was "honest" or not, unless you knew them. Do you think these "honest people" that you seem to know so well care about Jason or the legion of other players they cheated when they allowed games to be played with a jackpot that could not be won? You either don't know them and are lying, or you do know them and are not stating your conflict of interest. So which is it?

What more evidence do you need? If you have read and understood what has happened and are still not convinced that both Betsoft and Betcoin have serious trust issues and are better avoided, then nothing I can say or do will change your mind now. I would question your sanity and your reading comprehension though.
CL-Ed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 09, 2016, 08:02:35 AM
Last edit: August 09, 2016, 08:14:36 AM by CL-Ed
 #167

Why are you still willing to take affiliate money from many of the casinos you promote that primarily offer Betsoft games when in fact you know the evidence is to damning with the Bovada situation that they rig the progressive games.

BTW, I'm thankful for all the work you put in with your investigations but its hypocritical to continue to promote the Betsoft crooks on your site with casinos still operating their shady software.

Firstly Trayber thank you for your appreciation of the ongoing time and effort that we put into this. I know that you guys think that we're making loads of money from casinos that "primarily offer Betsoft games" and therefore don't want to do anything about it. That is not the case at all. Did you not notice that we were the ones who tracked their jackpots, we were the ones who publicised the issues, we were the ones that publicly posted articles urging people to avoid their games, and now only a small number of other affiliates sites and casinos have taken note? If it were the case wouldn't it have been better for us to not do the study, not publicise the results, and not call Betsoft and Betcoin out on it? According to your logic, wouldn't we make more money by ignoring this whole thing? The proof is in the pudding and that weak argument does not stack up at all.

In fact, here's an exercise for you. Find me a casino that "primarily offers Betsoft games" that we have rated 4 stars or higher on our site (these are the ones that people mainly go to). Can we agree that "primarily" means at least 50% of the games in their casino? I would be surprised if you can find one. You can start here on our page that lists Betsoft casinos. Most of the highly rated ones on that list are multi-provider casinos which use a third party aggregator platform for their games (eg EveryMatrix), of which Betsoft would make up less than 5 or 10% of the games at a guess. The fact is that there are very few Betsoft-only casinos, and those that do exist are poor. Don't swallow Betsoft's marketing lies and be mislead by perhaps your own experience of crypto-only casinos, they are not the major player that they claim to be.

Now are there casinos reviewed on our site that have Betsoft games that we have not blacklisted? Yes there are, as you can see on that page. Have any of those been complicit in the ripping off a jackpot winner, have any been caught running fake or pirated games, have any been shown to be not paying winners? Not to our knowledge. For example, do I think Guts Casino is a rogue? No of course not, they have one of the best reputations in the industry, but I noted today while writing this that they are running Betsoft games. That both concerns and surprises me.

We have been speaking to people at various casinos about this and it is an ongoing issue but at the end of the day, we are a small group of people who neither have the time nor resources to chase up every casino and alert them to this issue and encourage them to remove the games. We release our information publicly and do what we can. We have informed the Curacao licensing authorities. I'm sure you can guess what their response was. We can only guess too, because we never got one. It would be great if people who are customers (or concerned members of the community like yourself Trayber) of casinos that still run their games stopped playing there and contacted them and told them why. That would be a lot more productive that coming here and bitching and moaning at one of the few people to have actually done anything about this situation. If it wasn't for us you would be blissful in your ignorance of the charade being perpetrated by Betsoft and Betcoin, and 99% of other industry sites have said and done nothing about this at all.

We have Pragmatic Play (a.k.a. TopGame) on our blacklist too, but in recent times some well-run multi-platform casinos have added their games to their selection and we have not blacklisted them either. Its not a simple situation and I honestly do not know the right answer. In the absence of a better solution we continue to warn people not to play games belonging to a rogue software provider, and we will gladly inform people of any casino that decides to remove their games like Bovada, Slots.lv, and SlotsMillion did. We are not unfairly "biased" against Betsoft as they have been treated the same as TopGame / PP. Take note of that Betsoft and Betcoin shills.

I do agree that we need to find a better way to deal with otherwise good casinos with a history of fair operation (like Guts for example) that start offering games from software providers like Betsoft and Pragmatic Play that we consider to be rogue. I have a few ideas and I am open to suggestions, of which obviously the first is to blacklist them all as you suggest. I had hoped that publicly shaming these companies would achieve more than it has and make that step unnecessary, but there you have it, we are where we are which is sadly a reflection of the priorities of most people in this industry.
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2016, 09:26:54 AM
Last edit: August 09, 2016, 09:58:32 AM by cjmoles
 #168

Why are you still willing to take affiliate money from many of the casinos you promote that primarily offer Betsoft games when in fact you know the evidence is to damning with the Bovada situation that they rig the progressive games.

BTW, I'm thankful for all the work you put in with your investigations but its hypocritical to continue to promote the Betsoft crooks on your site with casinos still operating their shady software.

Firstly Trayber thank you for your appreciation of the ongoing time and effort that we put into this. I know that you guys think that we're making loads of money from casinos that "primarily offer Betsoft games" and therefore don't want to do anything about it. That is not the case at all. Did you not notice that we were the ones who tracked their jackpots, we were the ones who publicised the issues, we were the ones that publicly posted articles urging people to avoid their games, and now only a small number of other affiliates sites and casinos have taken note? If it were the case wouldn't it have been better for us to not do the study, not publicise the results, and not call Betsoft and Betcoin out on it? According to your logic, wouldn't we make more money by ignoring this whole thing? The proof is in the pudding and that weak argument does not stack up at all.

In fact, here's an exercise for you. Find me a casino that "primarily offers Betsoft games" that we have rated 4 stars or higher on our site (these are the ones that people mainly go to). Can we agree that "primarily" means at least 50% of the games in their casino? I would be surprised if you can find one. You can start here on our page that lists Betsoft casinos. Most of the highly rated ones on that list are multi-provider casinos which use a third party aggregator platform for their games (eg EveryMatrix), of which Betsoft would make up less than 5 or 10% of the games at a guess. The fact is that there are very few Betsoft-only casinos, and those that do exist are poor. Don't swallow Betsoft's marketing lies and be mislead by perhaps your own experience of crypto-only casinos, they are not the major player that they claim to be.

Now are there casinos reviewed on our site that have Betsoft games that we have not blacklisted? Yes there are, as you can see on that page. Have any of those been complicit in the ripping off a jackpot winner, have any been caught running fake or pirated games, have any been shown to be not paying winners? Not to our knowledge. For example, do I think Guts Casino is a rogue? No of course not, they have one of the best reputations in the industry, but I noted today while writing this that they are running Betsoft games. That both concerns and surprises me.

We have been speaking to people at various casinos about this and it is an ongoing issue but at the end of the day, we are a small group of people who neither have the time nor resources to chase up every casino and alert them to this issue and encourage them to remove the games. We release our information publicly and do what we can. We have informed the Curacao licensing authorities. I'm sure you can guess what their response was. We can only guess too, because we never got one. It would be great if people who are customers (or concerned members of the community like yourself Trayber) of casinos that still run their games stopped playing there and contacted them and told them why. That would be a lot more productive that coming here and bitching and moaning at one of the few people to have actually done anything about this situation. If it wasn't for us you would be blissful in your ignorance of the charade being perpetrated by Betsoft and Betcoin, and 99% of other industry sites have said and done nothing about this at all.

We have Pragmatic Play (a.k.a. TopGame) on our blacklist too, but in recent times some well-run multi-platform casinos have added their games to their selection and we have not blacklisted them either. Its not a simple situation and I honestly do not know the right answer. In the absence of a better solution we continue to warn people not to play games belonging to a rogue software provider, and we will gladly inform people of any casino that decides to remove their games like Bovada, Slots.lv, and SlotsMillion did. We are not unfairly "biased" against Betsoft as they have been treated the same as TopGame / PP. Take note of that Betsoft and Betcoin shills.

I do agree that we need to find a better way to deal with otherwise good casinos with a history of fair operation (like Guts for example) that start offering games from software providers like Betsoft and Pragmatic Play that we consider to be rogue. I have a few ideas and I am open to suggestions, of which obviously the first is to blacklist them all as you suggest. I had hoped that publicly shaming these companies would achieve more than it has and make that step unnecessary, but there you have it, we are where we are which is sadly a reflection of the priorities of most people in this industry.

It took all them words to answer that one question?  Let me write the response to the question you just wrote with fewer words:

Casinolistings makes money by driving traffic to their affiliates; many of their affiliates use Betsoft software, but it's too complicated for casinolistings to blacklist those sites because the evidence is inconclusive.  So, they start a campaign and blacklist the competition that uses Betsoft software instead because it helps drive traffic to their affiliated sites where the players they refer are safer?

Here's a question:  If you think that you have conclusive evidence that Betsoft has cheated and you're still getting paid to refer players to those sites that use the software, then why aren't you blacklisting yourself?  

Admit it....your statistical analysis was limited in scope and there are many ways the data could be interpreted, so you are not prepared to make a conclusive stand on your interpretation because it could cost you if you are wrong.  So, instead, you attack the competition because it's more rewarding and potentially less costly.  Right?

You, my friend, are wearing the hat of a shill....not me.  I trust the site where I play; you, on the other hand, make money off of poaching customers from the competition with your claims, then refer those customers to sites that use the same software you claim is cheating....what's wrong with that picture?
CL-Ed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 09, 2016, 09:51:56 AM
 #169

So instead of answering the questions I gave you, you ignore my post to you completely then complain that my detailed and honest answer to Trayber was too long for your liking. Would you like me to draw you a nice children's book with large words and pictures next time?

It is clear that what I have said to you has struck a nerve and you have no comeback other than to try to question our integrity. Classic playing the man rather than the ball. The pathetic tactic of someone who has been defeated in an argument.

I'm still waiting for your reasonable alternative interpretation of our data on the Betsoft jackpots that you keep alluding to but refuse to provide. You offer nothing of substance to back up anything that you are saying. You are all fart and no poo.

Furthermore you are plainly a shill that is in the pocket of Betcoin, and anything that you say should be read with that in mind. How on earth you could still trust the site after the mountain of evidence that has been presented is beyond me. You either work for them or are deluded.

I have already answered all your questions including the one you have rephrased and posed several to you which you are clearly unable or unwilling to address. Until you do so I will not engage with you further. People can make up their own mind as to who is being honest and what their motivations are here.
cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 09, 2016, 10:59:43 AM
Last edit: August 09, 2016, 11:10:16 AM by cjmoles
 #170

So instead of answering the questions I gave you, you ignore my post to you completely then complain that my detailed and honest answer to Trayber was too long for your liking. Would you like me to draw you a nice children's book with large words and pictures next time?

It is clear that what I have said to you has struck a nerve and you have no comeback other than to try to question our integrity. Classic playing the man rather than the ball. The pathetic tactic of someone who has been defeated in an argument.

I'm still waiting for your reasonable alternative interpretation of our data on the Betsoft jackpots that you keep alluding to but refuse to provide. You offer nothing of substance to back up anything that you are saying. You are all fart and no poo.

Furthermore you are plainly a shill that is in the pocket of Betcoin, and anything that you say should be read with that in mind. How on earth you could still trust the site after the mountain of evidence that has been presented is beyond me. You either work for them or are deluded.


I have already answered all your questions including the one you have rephrased and posed several to you which you are clearly unable or unwilling to address. Until you do so I will not engage with you further. People can make up their own mind as to who is being honest and what their motivations are here.

Evidence?  You seen evidence?  I've been playing at Betcoin a long time and the evidence that you think you've witnessed must've been presented to you by Twitchy....is he on your team too?  The minor glitches that Twitchy keeps eluding to have all been found, fixed, and more then compensated for long ago.  Twitchy keeps twisting the truth, using multiple accounts to echo his claims, and spreading misinformation.  Nobody was cheated like he claims.....where are those who feel cheated but weren't compensated and where is their evidence?  

I will post an alternative interpretation on your website underneath your data for clarity maybe.  But, I'm sure that if you've taken any courses in statistics, a few possible alternative interpretations have already crossed your mind; otherwise, you would have blacklisted your affiliate casinos who still offer the services provided by Betsoft.  Right?  Do you think 9 months of subjective data is enough to render a conclusive picture of the variance involved in your interpretation?  Really?  And, somebody gave you a job?
TwitchySeal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 738



View Profile
August 09, 2016, 10:28:47 PM
 #171

Before anyone take cjmoles too seriously, take a look at how he defends Betsoft in this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1554617.40

https://archive.is/0YCGP (archived in case he goes back to edit/delete)

The truth will prevail.  Scumbags like cjmoles can slow it down, not stop it.
marlais
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 132
Merit: 111


View Profile
August 10, 2016, 03:17:59 AM
 #172

Out of curiosity, how many satoshis per post does Betcoin pay people to have Betcoin's ad in their forum signature? He's probably well on his way to getting an item off the dollar menu just for being a contrarian.
TwitchySeal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 738



View Profile
August 10, 2016, 04:01:36 AM
 #173

Out of curiosity, how many satoshis per post does Betcoin pay people to have Betcoin's ad in their forum signature? He's probably well on his way to getting an item off the dollar menu just for being a contrarian.

Betcoin pays 6-7BTC per month to their 45-55 members.

They pay more than any other campaign. (I think)

The only reason ognasty and a majority of their members is a member is bc of the money. (I know)

It's disgusting and needs to be stopped.


(on my phone, do the math - I will share more detailed info tomorrow or thurs)
TwitchySeal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 738



View Profile
August 13, 2016, 01:22:09 AM
 #174

Responding here to cjmoles post in the [Beware] TwitchySeal: Abuses his Rep, replies to his own posts with alts, etc thread.

-snip-
If the jackpot cannot be won on a "free spin," then it is only right to specify that point for the players who don't realize it.
-snip-
No player should "realize it" if it's not written anywhere. 

-snip-
If the rules were not clarified, then people who don't understand the difference between "free" and "maximum" would still think that "free spins" qualify under the only "max bet wager" qualifies rule, by extension, when they actually don't.  All of it is coded into the software....
-snip-

Jason bet the maximum.  The result of his maximum wager was free spins.  These freespins pay out based on the ammount of the wager that triggered them.  (in this case, the maximum)  At no point was jason given the option to bet more.  If he had been, and he decided not to bet as much as he could, then he would not be eligible for the jackpot (according to the rules at the time).  That's not what happened though.  He bet the maximum.

if "free spins" did qualify as a maximum bet, then the jackpot would've dropped because it would've been coded into the software....but it wasn't coded into the software because free spins don't qualify, so the jackpot didn't drop.
I somewhat agree with you hear.  All things considered, it's pretty hard to draw any conclusion other than the software is coded so that  large jackpots like this one simply can not be won. 

And, whoever said Betcoin changed the timestamp is lying because the opposite was true....they completely overlooked the timestamp.
No, they changed the time stamp.
The problem is, they didn't change it until after I called them out for changing their terms in June 2016 without telling players and leaving the "last updated Jan 2015"

Weeks later they claimed it was an accident.  Considering their history. there's only a tiny chance that they aren't lying, in my opinion.

The rules were not changed; they were clarified for those who didn't understand them which was the right thing to do, not the wrong thing to do. 
They added a rule about not being able to win the Jackpot during freespins.  This was a change.

Do you also believe that the rules were clear enough to avoid clarifying that point?  Should they have left them the way they were or does it help to have them clarified?
The rules are not clear enough.  They need to clarify where these jackpots are receiving funds from/which sites they can be won at.  They need to clarify what happens when a jackpot is won: does the player receive the whole thing?  How do they seed the new jackpot?  What are the odds of hitting a jackpot?  Do the chances vary from denomination to denomination? 

If they don't want the jackpot to be eligible during free spins, that's  fine.  But it's not fine to add this rule and enforce it retroactively.  I believe they only did this because they do not consdier that 500BTC jackpot as money the players are entitled to.  They believe they have no intention of paying that BTC500 jackpot.


1)  "Greedy Goblins" is not the game in question as you are claiming; the game in question is called, "The Glam Life."

2)  You are right....the jackpot cannot be won on "The Glam Life" during free spins because free spins do not qualify as max bet wagers as stated in the game's rules and coded into the software.

3)  Jumping from the rules as stated in one game, re-interpreting them to fit your argument, and then applying that interpretation to a totally different game with a different set of conditions IS a great leap in logic.

I was using Greedy Goblins to prove that the possibility of winning a Progressive Jackpots during a freespin or bonus round is nothing out of the ordinary.  There is no "unspoken rule" that Progressive Jackpots can't be won if your other-wise qualifying bet results in multiple "spins" or a bonus round.  In fact, it's quite common. 

Unless otherwise noted, if a player makes a bet and triggers "freespins"  they should expect these "freespins" to payout based on their initial wager. 

It's interesting to see cjmoles is now making a very similiar argument that Betcoin made right off the bat:

Quote from: Betcoin Support
Betsoft has been doing this for well over 10 years servicing the top online casinos in the industry. You would have the same answer on any other casino. We have dealt with this before that is why I mentioned it in my first reply despite the fact that you did not mention it was a bonus round. They have also dealt with this many times before, but most players understand that it is a bonus or free round and there are different outcomes because of that.


Quote from: Betcoin Support
The point is this isn't the first time this has happened. Most people understand this clearly and move on especially due to the fact that it is a bonus round and you can't even bet the max that qualifies for the jackpot.

Interesting change of tune from this:

What can we do to make sure jasonort gets what he is owed.  Betsoft needs to be held accountable!  Maybe Betsoft, and any of it's supporters, should be blacklisted from the market!  I personally trust betcoin.ag and Bodog (Bovada), but Betsoft needs to be dealt with in a strong handed manner....In fact, I'm feeling cheated now too and I want all the money back that I've spent playing on their software chasing those progressives! <--Not that I believe that would ever happen, but for jasonort, what can we do to put the hurt on these thieves?

Just got an Email from Bovada and they are disabling all their Betsoft games until they can figure out what to do about the problems with the Betsoft software.  They're acknowledging there's a problem and they are investigating the situation.


Betcoin has over 70 individual progressive Jackpots totalling around 3,000 bitcoin (almost 2 million USD).

Assuming the jackpots are listed in the number of credits at that specific denomination...
The two highest denom jackpots for Glam Life account for more than 80% of the combined value of all Betcoins 70+ progressives.
These two jackpots are currently worth BTC 2,520.5205  (about $1,490,000)
503.6385BTC for the .5 denom and  2,016.882BTC for 1 denom

In the past 37 days, the .5 denom jackpot has grown by BTC0.002
The BTC2,016.882 Glam Life 1 denom jackpot has not grown in the past 37 days.

If you compare the jackpots at other sites (specifically the GETJACKPOT ping response from Betsoft servers) they are not linked.
For example the same two Glam Life .5 and 1 denom jackpots above are worth over BTC500 more for a total of BTC3,025.002 on Bitcasino.io 

It's pretty clear the same thing is happening at Bitcoin casinos that was discovered about Bovada slots in this thread, as in many Betsoft Jackpots are simply "turned off".  As in, they continue to collect 1% (or 2% in some cases) and contribute it to the  "jackpot" but only the smaller jackpots have any possibility of being hit.  As in, Betsoft is stealing from their affiliates based on this 1 or 2% and lying to the everyone about prize that can not be won.

JasonOrt has given up on his 500BTC jackpot long ago.  His case and the way it was handled is just another example of the current pathetic state of Betcoin and Bitcoin gaming in general. 

cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2016, 06:14:24 AM
 #175

Responding here to cjmoles post in the [Beware] TwitchySeal: Abuses his Rep, replies to his own posts with alts, etc thread.

-snip-
If the jackpot cannot be won on a "free spin," then it is only right to specify that point for the players who don't realize it.
-snip-
No player should "realize it" if it's not written anywhere. 

-snip-
If the rules were not clarified, then people who don't understand the difference between "free" and "maximum" would still think that "free spins" qualify under the only "max bet wager" qualifies rule, by extension, when they actually don't.  All of it is coded into the software....
-snip-

Jason bet the maximum.  The result of his maximum wager was free spins.  These freespins pay out based on the ammount of the wager that triggered them.  (in this case, the maximum)  At no point was jason given the option to bet more.  If he had been, and he decided not to bet as much as he could, then he would not be eligible for the jackpot (according to the rules at the time).  That's not what happened though.  He bet the maximum.

if "free spins" did qualify as a maximum bet, then the jackpot would've dropped because it would've been coded into the software....but it wasn't coded into the software because free spins don't qualify, so the jackpot didn't drop.
I somewhat agree with you hear.  All things considered, it's pretty hard to draw any conclusion other than the software is coded so that  large jackpots like this one simply can not be won. 

And, whoever said Betcoin changed the timestamp is lying because the opposite was true....they completely overlooked the timestamp.
No, they changed the time stamp.
The problem is, they didn't change it until after I called them out for changing their terms in June 2016 without telling players and leaving the "last updated Jan 2015"

Weeks later they claimed it was an accident.  Considering their history. there's only a tiny chance that they aren't lying, in my opinion.

The rules were not changed; they were clarified for those who didn't understand them which was the right thing to do, not the wrong thing to do. 
They added a rule about not being able to win the Jackpot during freespins.  This was a change.

Do you also believe that the rules were clear enough to avoid clarifying that point?  Should they have left them the way they were or does it help to have them clarified?
The rules are not clear enough.  They need to clarify where these jackpots are receiving funds from/which sites they can be won at.  They need to clarify what happens when a jackpot is won: does the player receive the whole thing?  How do they seed the new jackpot?  What are the odds of hitting a jackpot?  Do the chances vary from denomination to denomination? 

If they don't want the jackpot to be eligible during free spins, that's  fine.  But it's not fine to add this rule and enforce it retroactively.  I believe they only did this because they do not consdier that 500BTC jackpot as money the players are entitled to.  They believe they have no intention of paying that BTC500 jackpot.


1)  "Greedy Goblins" is not the game in question as you are claiming; the game in question is called, "The Glam Life."

2)  You are right....the jackpot cannot be won on "The Glam Life" during free spins because free spins do not qualify as max bet wagers as stated in the game's rules and coded into the software.

3)  Jumping from the rules as stated in one game, re-interpreting them to fit your argument, and then applying that interpretation to a totally different game with a different set of conditions IS a great leap in logic.

I was using Greedy Goblins to prove that the possibility of winning a Progressive Jackpots during a freespin or bonus round is nothing out of the ordinary.  There is no "unspoken rule" that Progressive Jackpots can't be won if your other-wise qualifying bet results in multiple "spins" or a bonus round.  In fact, it's quite common. 

Unless otherwise noted, if a player makes a bet and triggers "freespins"  they should expect these "freespins" to payout based on their initial wager. 

It's interesting to see cjmoles is now making a very similiar argument that Betcoin made right off the bat:

Quote from: Betcoin Support
Betsoft has been doing this for well over 10 years servicing the top online casinos in the industry. You would have the same answer on any other casino. We have dealt with this before that is why I mentioned it in my first reply despite the fact that you did not mention it was a bonus round. They have also dealt with this many times before, but most players understand that it is a bonus or free round and there are different outcomes because of that.


Quote from: Betcoin Support
The point is this isn't the first time this has happened. Most people understand this clearly and move on especially due to the fact that it is a bonus round and you can't even bet the max that qualifies for the jackpot.

Interesting change of tune from this:

What can we do to make sure jasonort gets what he is owed.  Betsoft needs to be held accountable!  Maybe Betsoft, and any of it's supporters, should be blacklisted from the market!  I personally trust betcoin.ag and Bodog (Bovada), but Betsoft needs to be dealt with in a strong handed manner....In fact, I'm feeling cheated now too and I want all the money back that I've spent playing on their software chasing those progressives! <--Not that I believe that would ever happen, but for jasonort, what can we do to put the hurt on these thieves?

Just got an Email from Bovada and they are disabling all their Betsoft games until they can figure out what to do about the problems with the Betsoft software.  They're acknowledging there's a problem and they are investigating the situation.


Betcoin has over 70 individual progressive Jackpots totalling around 3,000 bitcoin (almost 2 million USD).

Assuming the jackpots are listed in the number of credits at that specific denomination...
The two highest denom jackpots for Glam Life account for more than 80% of the combined value of all Betcoins 70+ progressives.
These two jackpots are currently worth BTC 2,520.5205  (about $1,490,000)
503.6385BTC for the .5 denom and  2,016.882BTC for 1 denom

In the past 37 days, the .5 denom jackpot has grown by BTC0.002
The BTC2,016.882 Glam Life 1 denom jackpot has not grown in the past 37 days.

If you compare the jackpots at other sites (specifically the GETJACKPOT ping response from Betsoft servers) they are not linked.
For example the same two Glam Life .5 and 1 denom jackpots above are worth over BTC500 more for a total of BTC3,025.002 on Bitcasino.io 

It's pretty clear the same thing is happening at Bitcoin casinos that was discovered about Bovada slots in this thread, as in many Betsoft Jackpots are simply "turned off".  As in, they continue to collect 1% (or 2% in some cases) and contribute it to the  "jackpot" but only the smaller jackpots have any possibility of being hit.  As in, Betsoft is stealing from their affiliates based on this 1 or 2% and lying to the everyone about prize that can not be won.

JasonOrt has given up on his 500BTC jackpot long ago.  His case and the way it was handled is just another example of the current pathetic state of Betcoin and Bitcoin gaming in general. 



Yes, my stance did change once Betsoft resolved the issue with jasonort and after I looked at all the details, and realized that I was being manipulated with inaccurate information. I don't like cheaters or thieves just as much as the next person and probably more....but liars and false accusers are just as bad.  I'll stand up for those who are cheated, but I don't like being manipulated with false information to attack honest people to satisfy other people's perverted agendas.  Believe me, I've done thorough research on the subject and I am no slouch when it comes to probability, normal distribution, or variance, nor am I a slouch when it comes to statistical analysis and legal research.  I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....I earned my bones in life and I have more than I could ever possibly use as a result....No, I'm here because I believe in this stuff....I'm no bum hunter....I've been around the game a lot longer then you realize.
TwitchySeal
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 738



View Profile
August 13, 2016, 06:42:43 AM
 #176

Yes, my stance did change once Betsoft resolved the issue with jasonort and after I looked at all the details, and realized that I was being manipulated with inaccurate information. I don't like cheaters or thieves just as much as the next person and probably more....but liars and false accusers are just as bad.  I'll stand up for those who are cheated, but I don't like being manipulated with false information to attack honest people to satisfy other people's perverted agendas.  Believe me, I've done thorough research on the subject and I am no slouch when it comes to probability, normal distribution, or variance, nor am I a slouch when it comes to statistical analysis and legal research.  I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....I earned my bones in life and I have more than I could ever possibly use as a result....No, I'm here because I believe in this stuff....I'm no bum hunter....I've been around the game a lot longer then you realize.
Impressive.
game-protect
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 506


Online Gaming Consumer Protection service


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2016, 10:31:56 AM
Last edit: August 13, 2016, 11:29:52 AM by game-protect
 #177

I would like the forums opinion on whether I should have won the jackpot. -snip-
Of course did you win the Jackpot!

Your original bet was a max bet. Then you won 4 max bets with the 3 airplanes on 2 paylines and each of the 4 free spins are technically a max bet.

The slot do not run without a bet and whether you paid directly or won the 4 max bets does not play any role for to be eligible for the Jackpot.



-> "Jackpot cannot be multiplied" confirms that Jackpots are eligible during free spins. They can not be multiplied, but they are clearly eligible!


Betcoin.ag is of course saying that BetSoft is to blame.  Who can I dispute this with?
Did you sign a contract with Betsoft? If not, then betcoin.ag would be your contract partner.

If you buy a car, the seller is your contract partner and not the producer or software provider!

I said betcoin.ag would be your contract partner, because there is no juridical valid contract between you and the domain betcoin.ag or however they call it. So from a juridical point of view, you can consider everything you get from Betcoin as a gift.

If you would know who the operator of Betcoin is, then you could sue them in the applicable jurisdiction...  Wink

actmyname
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1789


Exchange Bitcoin quicky--https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2016, 02:26:05 PM
 #178

Yes, my stance did change once Betsoft resolved the issue with jasonort and after I looked at all the details, and realized that I was being manipulated with inaccurate information.

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

I don't like cheaters or thieves just as much as the next person and probably more....but liars and false accusers are just as bad.  I'll stand up for those who are cheated, but I don't like being manipulated with false information to attack honest people to satisfy other people's perverted agendas.
Are you talking about Twitchy? Because from what we've already seen in the past, Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.


Believe me, I've done thorough research on the subject and I am no slouch when it comes to probability, normal distribution, or variance, nor am I a slouch when it comes to statistical analysis and legal research.

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....
https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

You can look at those pretty pictures if you don't have time. They show clear problems with BetSoft, and in no way did Betcoin determine at all that there was a problem with them. Even going out of their way to try and make it seem like jasonort didn't fulfill the requirements for the jackpot.

I earned my bones in life and I have more than I could ever possibly use as a result....No, I'm here because I believe in this stuff....I'm no bum hunter....I've been around the game a lot longer then you realize.
If you have more than you could possibly use, then you won't need a signature campaign, right? After all, you've earned enough. You can gamble with everything you've earned in the past.

cjmoles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1016


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2016, 05:40:27 PM
Last edit: August 13, 2016, 06:27:50 PM by cjmoles
 #179

Yes, my stance did change once Betsoft resolved the issue with jasonort and after I looked at all the details, and realized that I was being manipulated with inaccurate information.

What information was inaccurate? Betcoin's, right? Because they only implemented the rule about max bets after jasonort began to complain.

No, Twitchy lied to you there too....The max bet rules have always been there.  It is a pretty established and well known fact to the regulars that play progressives that a max bet is required to qualify. Twitchy can only confuse the uninformed, which he's good at....

I don't like cheaters or thieves just as much as the next person and probably more....but liars and false accusers are just as bad.  I'll stand up for those who are cheated, but I don't like being manipulated with false information to attack honest people to satisfy other people's perverted agendas.
Are you talking about Twitchy? Because from what we've already seen in the past, Betcoin altered the ToS without changing the "Last updated" date to try and stealthily sneak in some rules. That's a serious problem.

The complaint was already submitted, recorded, and was being negotiated so there was no retroactive manipulation.  The rules needed to be clarified so that nobody else would think that "maximum" meant "free."  Do you think that they shouldn't have clarified the rules? kept them they way they were because they were already perfectly clear? I do.


Believe me, I've done thorough research on the subject and I am no slouch when it comes to probability, normal distribution, or variance, nor am I a slouch when it comes to statistical analysis and legal research.

I don't have all this free time to engage in weird debates, gamble, and do whatever I feel like because I'm dumb and poor....
https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots?page=1

You can look at those pretty pictures if you don't have time. They show clear problems with BetSoft, and in no way did Betcoin determine at all that there was a problem with them. Even going out of their way to try and make it seem like jasonort didn't fulfill the requirements for the jackpot.

If you graduated high school statistics then you'd realize that you need more than pretty pictures to draw an accurate conclusion....casinolisting's study is grossly flawed.  The game they're looking at, "Good Girl, Bad Girl" is designed to function within those distribution frequencies....If you dig a little deeper, you'd realize that it's not like other games....the jackpots are mutually exclusive by design. And, if you look a little deeper than that, you'll find that there aren't too many others outside of the casinolistings affiliate program who take their flawed study very seriously.  Here look at the game: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742 THE JACKPOTS ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE BY DESIGN!

I earned my bones in life and I have more than I could ever possibly use as a result....No, I'm here because I believe in this stuff....I'm no bum hunter....I've been around the game a lot longer then you realize.
If you have more than you could possibly use, then you won't need a signature campaign, right? After all, you've earned enough. You can gamble with everything you've earned in the past.

You are absolutely correct. I don't need a signature campaign....I do this because I believe in bitcoin and Betcoin.ag poker.  I am tired of my government telling me that I can't spend my own money to play poker online, period. And, I will promote the hell out of honest bitcoin poker sites like Betcoin.ag....I don't care what all the pro-regulatory shills have to say about it. I need an honest place to play poker without third party interference and Betcoin.ag is the only site that meets those requirements.


Red Font added by me in the above for brevity.

EDIT: To combine responses for brevity.
I would like the forums opinion on whether I should have won the jackpot. -snip-
Of course did you win the Jackpot!

Your original bet was a max bet. Then you won 4 max bets with the 3 airplanes on 2 paylines and each of the 4 free spins are technically a max bet.

The slot do not run without a bet and whether you paid directly or won the 4 max bets does not play any role for to be eligible for the Jackpot.



-> "Jackpot cannot be multiplied" confirms that Jackpots are eligible during free spins. They can not be multiplied, but they are clearly eligible!


Betcoin.ag is of course saying that BetSoft is to blame.  Who can I dispute this with?
Did you sign a contract with Betsoft? If not, then betcoin.ag would be your contract partner.

If you buy a car, the seller is your contract partner and not the producer or software provider!

I said betcoin.ag would be your contract partner, because there is no juridical valid contract between you and the domain betcoin.ag or however they call it. So from a juridical point of view, you can consider everything you get from Betcoin as a gift.

If you would know who the operator of Betcoin is, then you could sue them in the applicable jurisdiction...  Wink


This guy is manipulating the truth again.  The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying!  The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania sign"  in the "The Glam Life."
actmyname
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1789


Exchange Bitcoin quicky--https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2016, 06:22:08 PM
 #180

I would like the forums opinion on whether I should have won the jackpot. -snip-
Of course did you win the Jackpot!

Your original bet was a max bet. Then you won 4 max bets with the 3 airplanes on 2 paylines and each of the 4 free spins are technically a max bet.

The slot do not run without a bet and whether you paid directly or won the 4 max bets does not play any role for to be eligible for the Jackpot.



-> "Jackpot cannot be multiplied" confirms that Jackpots are eligible during free spins. They can not be multiplied, but they are clearly eligible!


Betcoin.ag is of course saying that BetSoft is to blame.  Who can I dispute this with?
Did you sign a contract with Betsoft? If not, then betcoin.ag would be your contract partner.

If you buy a car, the seller is your contract partner and not the producer or software provider!

I said betcoin.ag would be your contract partner, because there is no juridical valid contract between you and the domain betcoin.ag or however they call it. So from a juridical point of view, you can consider everything you get from Betcoin as a gift.

If you would know who the operator of Betcoin is, then you could sue them in the applicable jurisdiction...  Wink


This guy is manipulating the truth again.  The image above is not associated with the game in question....He is lying!  The game in question was called "The Glam Life" and if you look closely, you'll find that there is no "Elfania" symbol in the "The Glam Life."
Instead of double posting for the campaign, why not edit the two into one post?
Ah, but that's right! You need those precious cents!


EDIT: Looks like you've finally followed some advice!

The fact of the matter is not the game. That's irrelevant. They don't include the exclusivity rule of jackpots on max bet there. In fact, the red message in there means that the jackpot can be won in the Free Spins mode, as it's under that topic.

Hence their Terms of Service conflict with that very reality: "Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."
http://archive.is/XcDrD

You can see yourself. Please, tell me why this would happen. After all, you're so knowledgeable.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!