Online Casino News

VP Genius

VP Genius is an excellent video poker resource site that I've only just come across. There are fully 177 games to choose from, all of which have paytable, optimal play analyser, hand frequencies and returns charts, 10,000-hand simulator, strategy hand-rank tables, trainer and practice functions, plus the option to custom video poker game.

There is also a calculators and tools section, and a handful of video poker articles.

I've catalogued it in my video poker resources section, and added a VP Genius entry on my main resources page.

What an excellent find.

Post a Comment

Video poker page updates

In keeping with the recent deluge of "external resources" updates, I've substantially updated the video poker page's resources and articles section.

The main change is a catalogue of the video poker section of the Gamemaster articles archive, a grand total of sixty one articles out of a total archive of fully eight hundred.

Also icluded is a more precise breakdown of Michael Shakelford's video poker page.

In the fullness of time I'll no doubt find more to add...so watch this space.

Happy reading.

Post a Comment

Blackjack page updates

I've updated the main blackjack page with a much more comprehensive resources section.

Articles and stories about blackjack, interviews with famous players, and aspects of theory relevant to casual players and professionals alike.

Post a Comment

Progression page updates

I've updated the progressions page to include a related articles section.

The articles cover just about everything you could want to know about progressive betting: descriptions of the classic systems and examples of them in play, the mathematics behind them, why they don't work in terms of gaining an advantage over the casino, and their value - if any - to the bettor.

Post a Comment

Single deck blackjack updates

I've updated the single deck blackjack page to include a related single deck blackjack pages section of links to other relevant information on the 'net.

The pages from The Wizard Of Odds, BJ Math and BJ Info are technical in nature, but I found a handful of articles by The Gamemaster which, if not applicable to the online game, give an interesting historical insight into the single deck game that was in the USA.

Worth a read.

Post a Comment

Betfair new license agreement with Playtech

This caused me some concern when I first read it:

Playtech announces licence agreement with Betfair

Playtech (AIM: PTEC), the leading international designer, developer and licensor of software to the online and land-based gaming industry, is pleased to announce that it has established a major new licence agreement with Betfair, the world's leading online betting exchange, to provide a range of its online products and services.

(more)

If Betfair were to end the relationship with Chartwell they would sacrifice the four zero lounge games - blackjack, roulette, baccarat and video poker - and I would lose the four best games my site has to offer.

Fortunately...

Playtech and Betfair sign casino and bingo software deal

The contract for Playtech to provide its downloadable casino client will run alongside Betfair’s existing casino licensing deals with Chartwell and CryptoLogic.

(more)

So the hundred percent return games are safe, for the time being at least.

Post a Comment

Cherry Red Casino and Moneybookers: confiscation of winnings and apparent breach of the UK Data Protection Act

Cherry Red Casino is a Casinomeister accredited online casino. Accredition by Bryan "Casinomeister" Bailey is an indication of general trustworthiness for many players.

The casino does not provide an "about us" page, and offers practically no information about itself apart from a single entry, buried deep in the FAQ, which mentions Nicosia, in Cyprus, as its location.

The web site is sparse, tacky and inspires little confidence.

But they are accredited by Casinomeister and, as such, many players trust them, warts and all.


In May 2009, Cherry Red Casino was reported to me as having confiscated USD $5000 in winnings, derived from an $800 deposit and a $2000 bonus, in December 2008. This is what the casino offered as justification for this behaviour - I have seen all the relevant emails and can confirm they are genuine:

We are contacting you concerning your withdrawal at Cherry Red Casino.

Your account has been investigated and the outcome of these investigations is that your account has been deemed to be fraudulent and your winnings are therefore null and void. You will not be able to withdrawal (sic) your winnings from Cherry Red and your account has been deactivated. We have worked closely with third parties to ascertain which players are genuine and which are fraudulent and yours has come back as being connected to other players in Europe and as having transferred funds between Moneybookers accounts.

Regards,

Cherry Red Fraud Department

The casino specifically confirms receipt of confidential information from Moneybookers, as opposed to "third parties", in another email:

We are certain that the information we had received from Moneybookers and third parties constitute to the answers we have given players.

There are two important things to note here:


In the first place, transferring funds between Moneybookers accounts is not at all illegal, it is a standard Moneybookers service - see the benefits page:

You can send money worldwide to anyone with an email address - even if the recipient does not have a Moneybookers account yet.

When you make payments from one account to another, the transaction will process instantly and will be viewable in your Moneybookers account history.

Nothing illegal there, so why does Cherry Red cite this as indicative of fraud?

The player in question was also confused:

I have indeed transferred funds between Moneybookers accounts. These transactions have solely been to local friends' accounts. My friends are all legitimate casino and/or poker players.

I find nothing fraudulent in transferring Moneybooker funds. I also know that none of my friends have ever played at a Rushmore group casino, so how my Moneybookers transactions can imply fraud is a mystery to me.

However, the most important question is: Why did Moneybookers furnish the casino with this information in the first place?

They clearly did so, as there would be no way for the casino to know about the player's Moneybookers activity, the "...transferred funds between Moneybookers accounts" mentioned in the first email, other than from information received from Moneybookers itself.

And of course, the casino confirms receipt of information from Moneybookers in the second email.



Moneybookers is regulated by the UK Financial Services Authority and therefore answers to UK law, including the Data Protection Act, which makes specific requirements concerning the distribution of personal data.

In the "Rights of data subjects and others" section of the DPA, the following is stated:

7 Right of access to personal data

(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 8 and 9, an individual is entitled -

(a) to be informed by any data controller whether personal data of which that individual is the data subject are being processed by or on behalf of that data controller,

(b) if that is the case, to be given by the data controller a description of -

(i) the personal data of which that individual is the data subject,

(ii) the purposes for which they are being or are to be processed, and

(iii) the recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may be disclosed,

(c) to have communicated to him in an intelligible form -

(i) the information constituting any personal data of which that individual is the data subject, and

(ii) any information available to the data controller as to the source of those data

This tells us that a consumer must be informed when and why his personal data is being processed - "processing" is defined by the act as...

...disclosure of the information or data by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available.

Moneybookers have contravened all the above -

• They did not inform the customer that his data was to be disseminated.

• They did not tell him the exact data to be revealed.

• They did not tell him who was to receive the data.

• They did not tell him the purpose of the disclosure of the information.


This is not a new activity on the part of Moneybookers. In July last year I reported on another such incident in the Moneybookers potential breach of UK law article, on which occasion Moneybookers received, as opposed to disseminated, confidential customer information.

Then, as now, a complaint against Moneybookers with the FSA is in order, and I would encourage any player in a similar situation to pursue this line.


Putting aside the behaviour of Moneybookers, equally concerning is the response the player received from Casinomeister:

Whether you are innocent or not, your activities make you indistinguishable from people that are cheating the casino and/or violating casino terms. As such, we support Rushmore's decision.

This case is now closed at Casinomeister.

It seems extraordinary to dismiss a claim with no apparent regard for the player's innocence or guilt, and on the basis of unspecified activities some of which are not at all illegal:

As it happens, in this case some of the evidence is already known to you, ie. the Moneybookers stuff - which you have openly admitted is valid.

It is valid. But again, it is not illegal. Why are they implying that a legal activity is illegal, fraudulent or evidence of fraud?


Just for good measure, the player was prevented from making any public comment on the matter:

As to posting in the forums, I'm afraid that will not be permitted. Based on the evidence in your case I am closing your Casinomeister membership.

Why ever?

If the player is guilty, then allow him to show himself as such and bolster the public perception of Cherry Red Casino as a paragon of online gambling respectability, rightly taking a stance against a fraudster.

To prevent public comment, and to then go so far as to revoke the player's membership, suggests that the evidence with the which the player was tried and convicted was at best weak, if it exists at all. If not, it makes no sense to stifle public comment.


There are three conclusions to draw here:


1) Cherry Red Casino will solicit confidential player information from online payment solution Moneybookers.

2) Moneybookers will, if the casino's testimony is correct, happily comply and put itself in breach of the laws to which they answer.

3) Online gambling industry self-proclaimed "watchdog" Casinomeister will dismiss such cases, notwithstanding the demonstrable apparent illegal behaviour of at least one very big player in the online payment solution industry which it should be considered right, fair and necessary to expose, and irrespective of the player's entirely legal and non-fraudulent actions in their dealings with that entity - person to person transfers are not illegal, and are encouraged by Moneybookers.


On several levels this is another shameful example of misconduct in the online gambling industry.


***Update 24th July 2009***:

Here is my subsequent correspondence with Moneybookers:

Hello,

I understand that Moneybookers will disclose confidential customer information to its casino clients at their request. In one instance, I've seen the emails in which the casino, Cherry Red, states this to a customer (etc etc)...

As such, Moneybookers certainly disclosed some form of confidential customer information to a casino.

Can you please tell the nature of confidential information that Moneybookers will disclose about its customers to its casino clients, and why? Also, why does Moneybookers not inform the relevant customer when his account data is discussed with third parties?

I welcome your comments and clarifications.

Thanks,

Regards,

HPG editor

Dear HPG editor,

Please note that as per our Terms & Conditions we provide information about our customers to third parties ONLY in proven cases of fraudulent activity and only to prevent further abuse of ours or merchant's systems and rules.

In case the merchant contacts our Anti-Fraud Department with an inquiry about the account condition of mutual customers we can only confirm the details already provided and whether the account is in good standing with us or not.

I would like to assure you that your personal details as well as all details for other customers of our company are kept confidential and are not disclosed to third parties according to the regulations of the FSA.

I hope the provided information has been useful, in case there is anything else I can assist you with, please don't hesitate to let me know. It would be my pleasure to help out.

Best regards,

Moneybookers VIP Team

Thank you for replying.

I'd like to give a specific example: If a merchant comes to you and says, "we believe there is a connection between accounts X, Y and Z. Can you please tell us if accounts X, Y and Z have had money transferred between them?", would Moneybookers, in this instance, say "Yes, that is correct", "No, that is not the case" or "This is not information that Moneybookers is at liberty to disclose"?

Thanks,

HPG editor

Dear HPG editor,

In case they just want to confirm a connection between different Moneybookers accounts, we will not disclose any information. The only case we may confirm if there has been activity between different accounts if the merchant comes to us with a specific case, where they have confirmed fraudulent or abusive customer behavior and this case has been evaluated by our Anti-Fraud team, who have established that there has been suspicious transaction activity.

In such a scenario, they will contact the merchant directly to confirm the details which we have received. I hope this clarifies the matter further, if there is anything else I can do for you, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Best regards,

Moneybookers VIP Team

So, if the casino says "there is fraudulent activity", Moneybookers will disclose the required details, as long as Moneybookers has also confirmed "suspicious activity" themselves.

What Moneybookers considers "suspicious activity" is not clear - transfers between accounts are not illegal. I'll try to get an answer on this.


Page top

Post a Comment

Online gambling debate between Barney Frank and Spencer Bachus

The online editorial US News has published a legalisation of online gambling debate between pro-gambling activist Barney Frank and his anti-gambling opponent Spencer Bachus, both of whom are US senators serving on the House Financial Services Committee.

In summary, Frank argues for personal freedom on the basis of a harmless adult activity; Bachus argues against the risks involved in gambling, and suggests that the recent prohibitionist legislation is working.

Here are both statements:

With Gambling, Personal Freedom Is Always the Best Bet, Says Barney Frank

There is one major reason that leads me to oppose the ban on Internet gambling: It is an activity that adult Americans enjoy and that does no conceivable harm to anybody else.

(more)

Online Gambling Leads to Crime and Hurts Young, So Why Encourage It? Asks Spencer Bachus

In the history of our country, the federal government has never authorized or sanctioned gambling of any kind. Now, offshore casino interests are leading an unprecedented effort to legalize Internet gambling.

(more)

• Barney Frank's opening statement that "...Internet gambling...is an activity that...does no conceivable harm to anybody else" is incorrect. He has at least chosen his words carefully - the word "else" is a vital addition, as to say that gambling harms nobody at all would be an absolute nonsense.

However, it is certainly not the case that gambling "does no conceivable harm to anybody else" - it can harm spouses, siblings and children, and can go on to harm even neighbours and outlying communities if the pathology is so deep as to lead to antisocial behaviour. An activity that incurs heavy financial loss will always have this potential affect.

That his opening statement, and presumably strongest argument, is simply wrong does not do his case any favours.


• Barney defends against the risks of underage gambling by suggesting that "...we do have ways of requiring that activities accessible through the internet have an enforceable age limit." Unfortunately, the legality of online gambling in the UK has not prevented underage gamblers from gambling, and there is realistically little that can be done to prevent a determined minor from accessing their parents' credit cards.

As such, I'm not sure what Senator Frank has in mind when he says this - underage gamblers will find a way. There being no details on offer, I suspect this is sound bite rather than substance on Barney's part.

For a very public underage online gambling debacle, see my Bella Vegas warning.


• Barney mentions the dire warnings of financing terrorism and money-laundering that the prohibitionists cite, saying that there is no evidence of this. This is true for terrorist activities as far as I know, but I do not see how the proceeds of online gambling being used to fund terrorism could ever be proven anyway, and as such this is a rather pointless argument.

Money laundering is certainly an issue - "chip-dumping" is a known money laundering procedure in poker rooms, although it is heavily guarded against in the more reputable rooms, with detection software and other such controls in place. Still, it is not the non-issue that Frank appears to suggest.


• The most convincing argument against prohibition is the one to which Frank has not really given much air time: that of the simple curtailing of personal freedom that prohibition represents. I find this very odd.

Has he abandoneded the stance, maybe seeing the waving of the flag of freedom as somehow analogous with the bible waving of the conservative anti-gambling advocates?

It does seem strange that he's left his trump card at home.





• Senator Bachus's initial arguments about the unique nature of online gambling are valid enough: online gambling is a 24/7 activity, and the use of credit cards does have the psychological effect of cloaking the reality of real money expenditure. Casino chips in brick and mortar casinos have a similar effect and are designed as such, and credit cards are an extension and furthering of this reality-masking. Quite true.


• However, Bacchus's arguments contain their fair share of inaccuracies: he refers to the "illegality" of online gambling, and cites the 2006 Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act as an instrument of illegalisation. Neither is in fact correct.

The 1961 Wire Act applies only to sports betting, and the 2006 act did not technically illegalise online gambling. In fact, it didn't even illegalise properly the use of financial instruments to settle wagers as it was designed to, as it refers to "unlawful gambling", where nothing was ever actually illegalised.

That said, the UIGEA did have a very powerful effect on the online gambling industry, so it achieved its presumed objectives irrespective of the poor wording of the act.


• Bacchus cites an interesting statistic, that between 2006 and 2007, the year following the passage of the UIGEA, gambling on the part of college-age children fell from 5.8 percent to 1.5 percent. If this is correct it is a very positive outcome and a solid argument in favour of his stance.

• He also cites an example of the destructive power of gambling, someone who ended up in prison as a result of his exposure to gambling; this is a fairly standard tactic, and the anti-prohibitionists would say that these examples represent the the exception rather than the rule.

Of course, irrespective of the reasons for airing the issues, they remain valid per se.


My own stance?


I suspect both senators may be working to agendas, Frank for the online gambling lobbyists and Bacchus for the state gambling monopolies.

As a gambling webmaster, I set about advocating the best gambles available, those with the highest returns, indulged in on a controlled and planned basis. Gambling against the enormous disadvantages represented by slot machines and sports betting, far and away the most common form of gambling indulgence, I do not support.

As such, while I recognise the democratic desire for freedom in all things reasonable, I do not support the legalisation of online casino gambling in the US, or anything else which encorages irresponsible gambling.

Page top

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | August 2021 | October 2021 | May 2022 | December 2023 | May 2024 | Atom feed