BetSoft Non-Payment of Jackpot

[TwitchySeal]

the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.  Once it's chosen, the other jackpot cannot be won.

CJmoles thinks the reason one jackpot is never won is because everyone chooses to play for the other jackpot instead.

Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10? 

people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher. 

Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur

He thinks everyone just picked whichever mode had the highest jackpot, resulting in the other mode never hitting.

Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?



My theory is that most people both ways, good and bad, at the same time and contribute to both jackpots with every spin.
When the bonus is triggered, sometimes they choose bad, sometimes they choose good. 
Someone who's up a lot of money is more likely to choose bad, someone who wants their money to last is more likely to choose good.
Most players will check it out each, "just to see"

It's pretty funny to see all the different ways you try to defend a casino that doesn't even bother trying to defend themselves. 

Any thoughts on the whole "this issue is between the player and a business that refuses to communicate directly with players and nobody knows who runs it or owns it? 
Wouldn't it be funny if it was the same people that owned Betcoin?

[cjmoles]

the player has the option of choosing which jackpot to play which also eliminates the possibility that the other jackpot could be won.  And, if one or the other jackpot is such that it has a higher expected return than the other, then that's the one that will be chosen.  Once it's chosen, the other jackpot cannot be won.

CJmoles thinks the reason one jackpot is never won is because everyone chooses to play for the other jackpot instead.

Anybody with half a mutant brain cell would choose the mode that had the highest jackpot....Especially those who are spending thousands of dollars in max bets to hit the jackpot.  If you had a choice to spend 5 to win 10, or 5 to win 5000.....would you still choose to spend 5 to win 10?  

people were playing in "Bad Girl" mode because the jackpots were higher.  

Players had the choice to play in the mode which they thought would be most profitable to them and when they did that it excluded the possibility that the other event could occur

He thinks everyone just picked whichever mode had the highest jackpot, resulting in the other mode never hitting.

Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?

--snipped TwitchTroll trash for brevity--

My theory is that most people both ways, good and bad, at the same time and contribute to both jackpots with every spin.
When the bonus is triggered, sometimes they choose bad, sometimes they choose good.  
Someone who's up a lot of money is more likely to choose bad, someone who wants their money to last is more likely to choose good.
Most players will check it out each, "just to see"

It's pretty funny to see all the different ways you try to defend a casino that doesn't even bother trying to defend themselves.  

Any thoughts on the whole "this issue is between the player and a business that refuses to communicate directly with players and nobody knows who runs it or owns it?  
Wouldn't it be funny if it was the same people that owned Betcoin?

"Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?"  That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times! It doesn't seem like it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.
But, I do know that the smaller jackpot has a much higher probability of hitting than the larger one, by design, because I read the rules before I played.

1)  Playing both ways costs twice as much to play, so it wouldn't make sense to throw away money on propositions that have a minimum expected return when one can get twice as many spins at the proposition that provides the greatest possible expected value for the same price.

2)  Choosing which mode to play is independent of any bonus round...(It's a Betsoft game, not the RTG version)(play it free here: http://casinogamesonnet.com/?game=good-girl-bad-girl&id=742)

3)  Nobody likes arguing with trolls, so why would they open up a dialogue with them?

4)  Wouldn't it be funny if it was owned by casinolistings.com who's getting tons of clicks for their affiliate program from this negative publicity while still receiving money from affiliates who provide Betsoft software?

Having addressed your points, I will re-iterate my point for clarity.  My point is that no valid conclusion can be attained from data that comes from a non-random source if it is treated as though it were random.  To say that same more loosely: One cannot logically say, "Look at this non-random data; it doesn't appear to be random at all; therefore, it must be faulty."  The study was seriously flawed and if the people conducting it are actually qualified enough to make that determination, then they will quickly perceive the error....If they are qualified and they don't perceive the error, then they may be motivated by some other factor rather than truth.

[TwitchySeal]

That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times!  It doesn't seem like it it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.

You're on the right track Cjmoles!  Finally!

Something is obviously wrong.

One possibility is that the data was faked not accurate due to human error.

If the data is accurate though, then there is a serious issue with Betsoft software.

Have you seen this article?  I somehow missed it.

I think the author did a really great job of articulating Betcoins ethical responsibility in the "WHO PAYS?" section.

[cjmoles]

That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times!  It doesn't seem like it it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.

You're on the right track Cjmoles!  Finally!

Something is obviously wrong.

One possibility is that the data was faked not accurate due to human error. <---(smile) data source citation?

If the data is accurate though, then there is a serious issue with Betsoft software. <--- (smile again) or the data source.

Have you seen this article?  I somehow missed it.

I seen the article....It is obviously using secondary sources such as the flawed statistical analysis provided by casinolistings.com and the bitcointalk thread which is untruthful.

I think the author did a really great job of articulating Betcoins ethical responsibility in the "WHO PAYS?" section. <--of course you do

But, the jackpot wasn't actually won as claimed in the bitcointalk thread....the dispute was whether or not the terms were clear....The jackpot never dropped and Betcoin did, immediately, pay the 1000 credits that were won. Who's responsible for interpreting the intent of the code....a random TwitchyTroll or the software provider?

For reference, here's case law on who has responsibility in similar cases: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1080167.html#footnote_ref_1  Footnote 1 reads: "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."


--snipped TwitchTroll trash for brevity--

Above colored text added by me for brevity

[TwitchySeal]

Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?

That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times!  It doesn't seem like it it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.

Do you think there's any possibility that these two graphs are accurate or no?

[cjmoles]

Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?

That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times!  It doesn't seem like it it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.

Do you think there's any possibility that these two graphs are accurate or no?  I have no idea what those graphs are, or where they came from because you do not cite a source; therefore, I cannot give you an opinion on the accuracy of the data.

---snipped TwitchyTroll trash because sources not cited----

Red text in the outside quote above added by me for clarity.

Where in the data does it demonstrate that the jackpot was won while nobody was playing?  It is an impossibility for that to occur, and I haven't seen any study that made that claim.  See, it's not the data that is wrong....it's the source of information that is wrong. So, find the person who is claiming that the smaller jackpot was won over 100 times while nobody was playing, and ask him to present the data and cite the source.  

And, the odds against hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are much greater than the odds against hitting the "Good Girl" jackpots; that's why the smaller, "Good Girl," jackpots were hit most often.  Furthermore, nothing in the data demonstrates that everybody was playing for the larger jackpot; in fact, the data shows quite the opposite; there were MANY people playing for the smaller, much easier to trigger, "Good Girl" jackpots, and fewer players playing for the larger, much harder to trigger, "Bad Girl" jackpots.  See Table Below

[actmyname]

And, the odds against hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are much greater than the odds against hitting the "Good Girl" jackpots; that's why the smaller, "Good Girl," jackpots were hit most often.  Furthermore, nothing in the data demonstrates that everybody was playing for the larger jackpot; in fact, the data shows quite the opposite; there were MANY people playing for the smaller, much easier to trigger, "Good Girl" jackpots, and fewer players playing for the larger, much harder to trigger, "Bad Girl" jackpots.

Nothing proves the chance for hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are lower. In fact, you even state, "there were MANY people playing for the smaller... "Good Girl" jackpots". Don't you think that the Good Girl jackpots were hit because they were played more often, rather than the odds being lower?

Furthermore, why are you using information from a source you've deemed wrong? We've already shown the graphs were from Casinolistings, and their data.

Also, you want to notice how Bovada has no recorded wins for 5 cent, 10 cent, 25 cent, and $1? (Like shown on the graph)

Good job switching the topic from Greedy Goblins' contradiction with Betcoin ToS to now just BetSoft issues, which you for some reason are refuting.


Last thing to point out: previously you were saying that people would rather pay for the larger jackpot. Well, then why would it be that the data shows more have gone for the two cent games instead of the higher coin games?

[CL-Ed]

This ridiculous idea that no-one was playing for the jackpots that were not being won at Bovada is so mind bogglingly wrong that it needs to be set straight.

If no-one was playing for those jackpots (i.e. picking Good or both Good/Bad modes) then their contributions from each wager would not be going to the jackpots and the jackpots would not be increasing, and the graphs would have flat horizontal lines. Playing in "Bad" mode does not make a contribution to the "Good" mode jackpot and vice versa. Playing at a 5c coin size does not contribute to the 10c jackpot and so on. They are all independent. So we know at a minimum that people were playing in both those modes (some at the same time) and at all coin sizes because all the graph lines were heading upwards (and down when they were won).

Players playing in both modes contribute to both jackpots and can choose their jackpot when the bonus round comes. If that is the case then you could reasonably expect them to pick the higher jackpot. If so, as soon as that one is won and it reverts to its seed value, you would expect most players to pick the other jackpot next time as it would now be higher. Thus you should expect to see a reasonably similar distribution of jackpot wins between good and bad at the same casino as the jackpots alternate between being biggest. And that is what we see at Slots.lv. But not at Bovada where several of the jackpots were huge and never won in bad mode compared to good.

Sticking to that theory, if the bad jackpots were much higher you would expect to see the good jackpots rarely won as presumably people would not elect to shoot for them when playing in both modes. Yet people kept winning the good mode jackpots. Perhaps the winners were exclusively playing in good mode despite the bad jackpots being thousands of times bigger. That still doesn't explain why no-one won the bad jackpots. In fact this suggestion makes the evidence all the more damning as the logical conclusion is that more people would have been going for the bad jackpots.

In addition, given the long history of data we have it is obvious that something changed when those jackpots that were being won several times a day suddenly stopped being won. And then a few weeks later they all reverted to their previous behaviour at the same time.

So then the only comeback is that our data is no good which has been suggested, again without any evidence to prove otherwise. Seeing as we recorded the data directly from Betsoft's servers after authenticating and getting a session token, we were receiving the exact same data that Betsoft was sending to its players while they were playing the game. So either our data is correct, or it is all wrong and therefore every player who was playing the games at the same time was being supplied with wrong jackpot data, which would be due to Betsoft incompetence. People can put their fingers in their ears and scream all they want about the data being no good because it doesn't support their predetermined conclusions or agenda that they are trying to push (sounding like a climate change denialist) but back in reality, Bovada's reaction says all you need to know about whether the numbers were right or not.

I'll quote Michael Bluejay (someone I have never met or spoken to before this) who wrote this after seeing the data:

3. Looking at the data of when the Slots.lv jackpots hit (and the Bovada denominations that don't exhbit the problem), I conclude that the odds of hitting the Bad Girl jackpot are about 1 in 20,000.  But Bad Girl 5¢ at Bovada has been played around 5.6 million times without hitting.  If the jackpot odds are 1 in 20k (which all evidence suggests), and if I've done my math right, the chances that it hasn't hit are 1 in 17,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.  That's more than the number of atoms in the universe. (More on the jackpot odds.)

4. In February 2016, several Bovada slots went from routinely hitting about once a day to not hitting at all for weeks, then all the slots were suddenly winnable again.  If that happened for even one slot machine that would be extremely suspicious, but the fact that it happened on multiple machines, with the dates that they went unwinnable and then became winnable again corresponding exactly, tells us unequivocally that this is a smoking gun.

[TwitchySeal]

I have no idea what those graphs are, or where they came from because you do not cite a source; therefore, I cannot give you an opinion on the accuracy of the data.

Oh.  You should really read this thread where they discuss the details of how they figured out the Betsoft Jackpots are rigged.

I assumed you had educated yourself on casinolistings.com


Over a month ago I told you:

If you want to understand the whole story, read this entire thread, all 3 pages, where a user brought the issue up, and how the owner went about investigating it :https://www.casinolistings.com/forum/gambling/online-casinos/28043/questioning-betsoft-jackpots
Also, before questioning the integrity of the investigation, take a look into the history of CasinoListings.com

Your response made it seem like you probably didn't read it yet, so I asked again:






Then you didn't respond at all, so I reminded you again:

CJ, i put a lot of effort into responding to you, hoping you would read it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236667.msg15575734#msg15575734
Did you?  

You really should have done more research.
Did you know that they track over 700 online progressive jackpots? https://www.casinolistings.com/jackpots/progressives
That they have been in the business for 10+ years and seem to be pretty respected within the online casino industry?

Edit: Hi Ed

[CL-Ed]

Oh.  You should really read this thread where they discuss the details of how they figured out the Betsoft Jackpots are rigged.

Yes please do. If you do you'll see I was initially skeptical.

In fact reading it back now to my eternal shame I sounded a bit like cjmoles at the time. How embarrassing!  

[jasonort]

Cj, How do you explain the smaller jackpot (the one nobody is choosing) getting hit over 100 times while not a single person wins the big jackpot that everyone picks?

That is very strange, indeed, if nobody picks it, yet it is won over 100 times!  It doesn't seem like it it should be won at all if it wasn't played....Something's obviously wrong with that data too.

Do you think there's any possibility that these two graphs are accurate or no?  I have no idea what those graphs are, or where they came from because you do not cite a source; therefore, I cannot give you an opinion on the accuracy of the data.

---snipped TwitchyTroll trash because sources not cited----

Red text in the outside quote above added by me for clarity.

Where in the data does it demonstrate that the jackpot was won while nobody was playing?  It is an impossibility for that to occur, and I haven't seen any study that made that claim.  See, it's not the data that is wrong....it's the source of information that is wrong. So, find the person who is claiming that the smaller jackpot was won over 100 times while nobody was playing, and ask him to present the data and cite the source.  

And, the odds against hitting the "Bad Girl" jackpots are much greater than the odds against hitting the "Good Girl" jackpots; that's why the smaller, "Good Girl," jackpots were hit most often.  Furthermore, nothing in the data demonstrates that everybody was playing for the larger jackpot; in fact, the data shows quite the opposite; there were MANY people playing for the smaller, much easier to trigger, "Good Girl" jackpots, and fewer players playing for the larger, much harder to trigger, "Bad Girl" jackpots.  See Table Below

http://i67.tinypic.com/v8ols2.png

cjmoles

Please look at my first post in this thread.  Look at the screenshots of my spin, of the paytable at the time of the spin, and at the proof that TwitchySeal provided proving that Betcoin adjusted their TOS after the fact to account for the free spins round.  After looking this over answer this question for me:  Should I have been paid the jackpot?  All of this debate about statistics is confusing and can be interpreted a million different ways.  But my spin is simple.  Either it should have won or it shouldn't.  If your answer is that it should have won, then Betsoft is scamming players and stealing their money.  And Betcoin by not standing up for their player and continuing to use this software is complicit in this scam. 

[jasonort]

I posted on Betcoin's forum two days ago asking for an update on the freeroll.  I also included in the post the questions that I have asked them to answer regarding my contested jackpot spin.  They had told me that my questions would be answered.  It has been nearly a month and they have yet to do so.  Within minutes my post had been deleted, and the 200 chips I had put towards the freeroll had been refunded to my account.   I jumped on player chat to confront Betcoin William about this.  He condescendingly said that I am dwelling on the past and I should move on.   He did claim that they will do the freeroll at some point in the future.  I won't hold my breath.  And of course I am dwelling on the past.  I was cheated out of a 1,000,000 credit jackpot.  It is quite clear to me that they just want me to go away.  They do not want attention drawn to the fact that I was cheated out of a jackpot on their site. And the fact that they will not answer questions about how this occurred tells me that they are complicit in what amounts to theft from their players by allowing this to happen and doing nothing about it.  For anyone reading this play at your own risk.  Betcoin will not back you up if you have a problem with one of the software providers.

[game-protect]

It is relevant.  It is not truthful to pretend that the rules for one game ("Greedy Goblins") apply to another totally different game ("The Glam Life") which has its own rules.  The fact is that only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot as was specified in the rules of the REAL game "The Glam Life" and free spins are not max bet spins because "maximum" and "free" have antithetical definitions.  Maximum: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maximum  Free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/free

See, when one knowingly bases their own information on information that is demonstrably false, then their own conclusions are already demonstrably false.  

"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" was Betcoin's phrasing to attempt to solidify their argument of "free spins do not award jackpots".

They have that in the sentence prior: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses"

So, if the terms don't coincide with the game rules, then certainly there's a problem. Which one takes precedence?

My arguments have had nothing to do with Glam Life, by the way. I was only arguing about the Terms of Service and the game information. By linking these two, you clearly haven't fully understood what I was stating.

The terms state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses pursuant to casino software provider rules. Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses."  This--> "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" and this -->"Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" are not opposing clauses.

1) The casino software provider rules do not state: "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses"

2) "Bonus round and free spins do not qualify for the jackpot bonuses" is a construct by the Betcoin scam artists, added to their alleged Terms of Service, after Jasonort won the Jackpot!

3) "Only real money rounds qualify for the jackpot bonuses" is in contradiction to the casino software provider rules, which state "5 jackpot symbols on max bet wins the JACKPOT!

-> there is a huge difference between "real money" rounds and "max bet" rounds  

Free spins never qualified for the jackpot, in "The Glam Life;" otherwise, the jackpot would have dropped when the combination was hit on the free spin. If free spins don't qualify, shouldn't that be clarified for the player who doesn't understand the difference between "max" and "free" and the mechanisms that link the two to avoid future confusion?

1) When you interact with scammers, then a Jackpot not dropping, does not necessarily mean you did not win it!

2) According to the software provider rules, on-reels bonus games qualify very well for the Jackpot, otherwise they would have excluded it in the rules.

3) There is no difference between "max" bet and "free" bet. If you won "max" bets, then they are "free" for you, but they are still "max" bets, if you won them based on a "max" bet.

To be able to understand this, though requires to have a brain.  

Look: "only max bet spins qualify for the jackpot."  "Only," is a big word in law and logic.  However, this is what the affiliate shills are trying to demonstrate that clause means: "only max bet spins, but sometimes free spins, qualify for the jackpot," but the word "only" actually really means "only"....it is exclusionary, not inclusionary.

1) While "only" indeed means only, the word only is not mentioned in the casino software provider rules! To be able to discuss this stuff, requires to be able to read.

I would be very concerned about a gambling company paying an army of promoters for nonsense posts.

2) According to the casino software provider rules, max bet on-reels bonus games always qualify for the Jackpot and not only sometimes, as suggested by you.

But, this is my point....the affiliate shills, the competitor shills, and the pro-regulatory shills are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts, and recruiting the ignorant to further their own perverted agendas.

Yes. We already understood very well that you are manipulating the truth, confusing the facts (or at least try to) and try to recruiting the ignorant to follow your perverted agenda.

[Limpitz]

Guys, relax.

1. The graphs are accurate.
2. The bad girl was clearly locked/unwinnable no doubt about this.
3. There are still tons of sites where the jackpots are locked (so Betsoft is as active as ever with their scam), check this one out for example: https://www.7red.com/games/good_girl_bad_girl : Good Girl is 115k Bad Girl is 116k, never won.

I have a question about jasonort though.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it:
1. The forum and community backed jasonort up and helped him against the casino to get his jackpot winning.
2. jasonort in silience agreed on a deal with them, letting the crooks go free.
3. jasonort then silenced himself and didn't want to contribute anymore to the forum since he already got what he wanted.
4. jasonort is having another problem and now comes back for help?

Sorry if I'm wrong here, but if these points are true, I feel that jasonort have played all his cards. I can't understand his guts to come back as if nothing happened and ask for more help when he fu**ed the community in the first place.

[CL-Ed]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it:
1. The forum and community backed jasonort up and helped him against the casino to get his jackpot winning.
2. jasonort in silience agreed on a deal with them, letting the crooks go free.
3. jasonort then silenced himself and didn't want to contribute anymore to the forum since he already got what he wanted.
4. jasonort is having another problem and now comes back for help?

1. That depends on what you mean by "his jackpot winning". He was not paid the jackpot. If you meant a tiny payoff that was nowhere near the full amount then carry on.

2. Agreed but I'm sure he felt that he was in a no-win situation where he could take the payoff or get nothing. I don't think any of us should judge him unless you have been in the same situation.

3. He definitely did not get what he wanted which was the jackpot that he legitimately won. The fact he has posted more recently suggests to me that the payoff has cleared and they cant hold anything against him now to keep him quiet and/or keep up the happy charade they made him play.

4. I don't see him asking for help. It appears to me that he is just trying to warn people about these crooks.

I do agree that Jason has played his cards for better or for worse. Maybe he was too quick to accept the payoff, or maybe he had no other choice. There is nothing he can do now other than to warn people. He's never going to see that jackpot money.

[Limpitz]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it:
1. The forum and community backed jasonort up and helped him against the casino to get his jackpot winning.
2. jasonort in silience agreed on a deal with them, letting the crooks go free.
3. jasonort then silenced himself and didn't want to contribute anymore to the forum since he already got what he wanted.
4. jasonort is having another problem and now comes back for help?

1. That depends on what you mean by "his jackpot winning". He was not paid the jackpot. If you meant a tiny payoff that was nowhere near the full amount then carry on.

2. Agreed but I'm sure he felt that he was in a no-win situation where he could take the payoff or get nothing. I don't think any of us should judge him unless you have been in the same situation.

3. He definitely did not get what he wanted which was the jackpot that he legitimately won. The fact he has posted more recently suggests to me that the payoff has cleared and they cant hold anything against him now to keep him quiet and/or keep up the happy charade they made him play.

4. I don't see him asking for help. It appears to me that he is just trying to warn people about these crooks.

I do agree that Jason has played his cards for better or for worse. Maybe he was too quick to accept the payoff, or maybe he had no other choice. There is nothing he can do now other than to warn people. He's never going to see that jackpot money.

Thank you for your reply.
I agree with all your points, too bad it had to go down this road.

[game-protect]

-snip-

2. jasonort in silience agreed on a deal with them, letting the crooks go free.

-snip-

Jasonort doubtless won the jackpot legitimately:

Features

5 jackpot symbols on max bet wins the JACKPOT!

www.betsoft.com/games/the-glam-life

-> the terms do not differentiate between directly paid max bets and won max bets

-> if on-reels bonus games would not qualify for the jackpot, they would have definitely excluded them in the "Features" terms

On the final spin I get five Yachts on the payline which in my opinion should have triggered the jackpot. Instead I was paid 1000 credits. This I believe this is evidence to the fact that it was a max bet according to the pay table. 5 yachts = 200 credits x Number of bets per line. Five bets per line is the maximum. Based on them paying me 1000 credits they're essentially stating that I bet the max amount.

1) Jasonort let the crooks go free, because he has no interest to claim and enforce the jackpot he won


2) The deal Jasonort agreed is juridically not valid, because

a) A deal requires to state the deal partners and the applicable jurisdiction

b) Jasonort was extorted to accept the deal, because the operator hide his identity and he was not able to enforce his basic right to go to a court


3) Jasonort still has the right to enforce his claim at a court of the applicable jurisdiction. But this would logically require to know it.


4) I did not make any research so far, but there are possibly traces that could lead to the identity of the operator

a) The Winning Poker Network in Costa Rica

b) Their software provider(s) like Betsoft in Malta

c) And so on

[TwitchySeal]

1) Jasonort let the crooks go free, because he has no interest to claim and enforce the jackpot he won

I think Jason was very interested in claiming the jackpot.

I think after weeks of fighting he realized they had no intention of paying the jackpot to him, or anyone.  It's pretty obvious to me with the Casino Listings data + Bodogs reaction + the fact that theres tons of tiny sites that anyone can start up and they each have their own progressives worth millions of dollars that these jackpots are a fucking scam.  Nobody will ever win a glam life jackpot unless they decide to reset them.  

We don't know what Jasons life is like or how much they offered him.  Before anyone gives him shit for accepting less than the jackpot should ask themselves what would you do if they offered 10k, 20k or 30k USD. (My guess is the number was in that range)  You could take the money or tell them to fuck off and probably never see a dime. [/quote]

2) The deal Jasonort agreed is juridically not valid, because

a) A deal requires to state the deal partners and the applicable jurisdiction

b) Jasonort was extorted to accept the deal, because the operator hide his identity and he was not able to enforce his basic right to go to a court

I agree.  After I got paid I'd be posting the NDA and whatever else I wanted all over this place.  Jason shouldn't post it unless he's comfortable though.  I know a lot of people stress out big time over that kinda thing,

3) Jasonort still has the right to enforce his claim at a court of the applicable jurisdiction. But this would logically require to know it.

There are no rules or regulations that Betsoft has to follow.  No terms or conditions.  Literally none.  They answer to nobody.  The only motivation a site has to not rob their players is they might damage their reputation - which is why they sites like Betcoin and FortuneJack are spending thousands a months "advertising" on this forum yet don't spend a penny on advertising anywhere else.

4) I did not make any research so far, but there are possibly traces that could lead to the identity of the operator

a) The Winning Poker Network in Costa Rica

b) Their software provider(s) like Betsoft in Malta

c) etc...

Look into this person:


https://www.linkedin.com/in/ellisbrandi

http://www.betsoft.com/dam/jcr:286ee740-101d-4d5d-9600-61d5659fda7f/Digital_Software_Limited_RNG__Certificate.pdf

A company like Caesars would be in very big trouble with NJDGE and NVGC to put any resources into a business like Betsoft that illegally provides online gambling in NJ and NV.



In other news, I'm pretty confident we've all been misinterperting the Betsoft Jackpot tickers.  I think they are all in mBtc, not credits. (1,000 mBtc = 1 Bitcoin = $580 at the moment for the btc noobs)




It's a big deal and not a big deal at the same time since nobody is going to win them.  But technically, I think Jason's jackpot would of been BTC1,007 instead of 1,007 [.5 credits] (BTC504)

It also makes sense that since the USD versions of Betsoft Progressives list the jackpots in USD, not credits.

[CL-Ed]

In other news, I'm pretty confident we've all been misinterperting the Betsoft Jackpot tickers.  I think they are all in mBtc, not credits. (1,000 mBtc = 1 Bitcoin = $580 at the moment for the btc noobs)

I agree and I pointed this out somewhere a while ago. He should have won more than even he thought.

[jasonort]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it:
1. The forum and community backed jasonort up and helped him against the casino to get his jackpot winning.
2. jasonort in silience agreed on a deal with them, letting the crooks go free.
3. jasonort then silenced himself and didn't want to contribute anymore to the forum since he already got what he wanted.
4. jasonort is having another problem and now comes back for help?

1. That depends on what you mean by "his jackpot winning". He was not paid the jackpot. If you meant a tiny payoff that was nowhere near the full amount then carry on.

2. Agreed but I'm sure he felt that he was in a no-win situation where he could take the payoff or get nothing. I don't think any of us should judge him unless you have been in the same situation.

3. He definitely did not get what he wanted which was the jackpot that he legitimately won. The fact he has posted more recently suggests to me that the payoff has cleared and they cant hold anything against him now to keep him quiet and/or keep up the happy charade they made him play.

4. I don't see him asking for help. It appears to me that he is just trying to warn people about these crooks.

I do agree that Jason has played his cards for better or for worse. Maybe he was too quick to accept the payoff, or maybe he had no other choice. There is nothing he can do now other than to warn people. He's never going to see that jackpot money.

Correct on all counts CL-Ed.  I have pretty much given up any hope of seeing another dime from my lost jackpot.  Just wanting to warn others of the bad behavior of betcoin.ag and BetSoft.