home | about us | contact | site map | credits | disclaimer | bookmark

Online Casino News


Saturday, February 26, 2011

VIP Golden Club blackjack part two


My earlier Rigged blackjack at VIP Golden Club article described the quite astonishingly malperforming blackjack game this casino was offering at the time, powered by software provider Casino Web Scripts.

They have since disabled the game.

Hooray, I hear you say.


Well, maybe not. The current game they offer isn't much better.

The game claims to be single deck H17, which is good in theory - the house edge is around 0.15%. But take a look at this:






I'm offered double down on three cards. In fact, the double option is always available on any number of cards. In theory, this reverses the house edge from the player onto the casino - a rare animal.


But it gets better. Here, the dealer stands on a soft 17:







This is even better for the player - the player return is now a cracking 100.3% with perfect play.


Think that's good? It gets better. Here, the dealer stands on a total of 13, giving an automatic win to my 20, which was paid:







So, simply avoid busting and you'll win.


Or maybe not. Things rapidly go the other way.


Here, the dealer hits on soft 18, ultimately beating my 19:







Think that's bad? How about a dealer hit on soft 19?







Think that's bad? How about a dealer hit on soft 17, followed by a 3 for soft 20...followed by another hit?







Surely it can get no worse? I mean, a hit on a blackjack would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?


Well, no:







However, the biggest problem with the game is one I can't easily show with screenshots. On many occasions, either at the end or during the hand the software freezes. When you reload, the cards should be where you left them, but they are not. They're gone...and so is your money.


This software may or may not be actually rigged. At the very least it's horrifically badly made, and should absolutely never have been released to the gambling public. But released it was.


Avoid depositing any money with this casino.


Update March 12th 2011:

On the basis of the comment below about trying the software, I ran another test. I played just two hands, but this seemed all that was necessary.

In the first, the dealer hit a soft 19.

The second is below:





The dealer this time has no aces to worry about, as the initial two cards are 8 and 9, for hard 17.

Nevertheless, it takes a card, receiving an ace for a hard 18.

Still not finished, it takes another again, hitting the hard 18 and busting.


I couldn't resist one more:





Business as usual. Player makes 19, so the dealer's soft 18 should be enough for a player win. The dealer takes another card, for soft 21, and another.


The casino clearly knows that its software is at worst horrendously malfunctioning, and at best, rigged. Yet they choose to do nothing.

Stay away from VIP Golden Club.



7 Previous Comments


I played in this strange called casino VIP Golden Club and it was an awful Blackjack , I spoke with the customer support and they said that they just made a soft launch and this not the 100% launch , they were testing the games and didn't accept any deposits , then i tried again in few days they sent me an email and they said they launched the final Black Jack game and I tried it and it was great better trillion times than the old one , and i deposited with my Neteller a $100 and won $220 after fulfilling the wagering and I requested a withdrawal after 3 days i found the winnings in my Neteller account , which is not bad. I like to take risks :)

By Anonymous Gerhard, at 7:30 am  


Man, HARD17 rules say that player stands only if he has Hard 17 +. All your examples are based on SOFT17.

A "hard hand" is a blackjack hand with no ace, or with an ace that must count as 1. A blackjack hand comprising an ace, a 7, and a 9 is a "hard 17." Notice that the ace must count as 1 in this hand; if it counted as 11, the hand would "bust" (i.e., go over 21).

A "soft hand" is a hand with an ace that counts as 11. A hand comprising an ace and a 6 is a "soft 17."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:01 pm  


"Man, HARD17 rules say that player stands only if he has Hard 17 +. All your examples are based on SOFT17."

No, it relates to the dealer, not the player.

Your description of H17 and S17 is correct, but none of this applies to the above examples. In some, the dealer stands on soft 17. In others, it hits soft 17. In others, it hits soft 18. In others, it hits soft 20. In one, it hits soft 21, or a blackjack, which is an automatic win.

And in one example, it stands on hard 13 - the direct reverse of all the above and, of course, wrong.

If you think any of the above examples do NOT demonstrate clearly malfunctioning software (apart from the A6 at the top, which I give to demonstrate the inconsistency of the dealer play), then please say which, and I'll explain why it's there. However, my simple descriptions above should really be more than adequate.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 2:59 pm  


On the basis of Gerhard's comment about actually trying this dreadful software, I did a small retest - see the update above.

There's no change. The dealer hitting is still completely off whack.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 3:18 pm  


VIP Golden Club has been added to the Wizard Of Odds blacklist.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 5:42 pm  


I played this game and it is very nice and doesn't have the problems you mention.

I played blackjack in many real and online casinos and this game has no problem. Maybe they fixed this.

I think your article is outdated.

By Blogger kemas erwin, at 2:39 pm  


I checked the game on developer's website : www.casinowebscripts.com , because VIP GOLDEN CLUB doesn't exist

By Blogger kemas erwin, at 2:41 pm  


Post a Comment

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Betfair happy hour: counter-productive responses to the matter


I was set thinking again about the Betfair happy hour fiasco while visiting the London Affiliate Conference two weeks ago, where a session led by the GPWA included five minutes of panel discussion on the matter.


Betfair has been condemned in many quarters, and rightly so - their incompetent handling of the matter from start to finish would make a fairground sideshow look like a global political summit in comparison. However, another substantial aspect, alongside the payment issue, has been the clarion call to boycott / delist / "rogue" Betfair, typified by the Casinomeister rogue entry, which concludes with this homily:



Avoid this casino at all costs.



Avoid Betfair "at all costs"? Let's have a look at the wider picture.


In terms of gambling services provided, Betfair is the best operation on the internet that I'm aware of. There are two main products on offer - sportsbetting and casino. Let's have a look at both.


Sportsbetting is offered on the exchange, a marketplace where customers buy and sell odds between themselves rather than having to accept whatever the house is offering. As the offers represent market value, they are superior to the odds offered by traditional bookmakers: where Betfair offers odds of 6 on an underdog, a bookmaker offers 5.5; where Betfair offers 1.8 on a favourite, the bookie offers 1.6. And so on.

Betting at an exchange rather than a bookmaker will always see a better return to the customer. Of course, Betfair doesn't have a monopoly on the exchange concept - both Betdaq and Matchbook offer similar products. However, they remain in the top tier of quality odds providers.


The Betfair casino is unique. Although a standard Playtech setup for the most part, the four games compromising the Zero Lounge represent casino gambling with no house commission at all and no theoretical loss to the player, provided that the two skill-based games, blackjack and video poker, are played with optimum strategy. This is a one-of-a-kind product which is on offer nowhere else that I'm aware of.


So, in short: for sports bettors and casino gamblers, Betfair offers the best odds anywhere on the internet. So what is achieved by recommending that players do not patronise the operation / delisting them?


There is a substantial downside in this for recreational gamblers, as consequently there will be less opportunity for them to find their way to the quality odds they offer, with the inevitable result that they will lose more money by patronising operations offering lower value. It's therefore disadvantageous, from this aspect, to "avoid this casino at all costs".


Is there an upside? The usual reason for delisting a gambling operation is to either protect the customer from a disreputable pattern of behaviour or simply to send out a general message that bad behaviour is unacceptable. Betfair has learned from its mistake and will never again offer an unlimited bonus, so there's nothing to protect the customer from in this instance. That leaves the creditable stand against bad behaviour, but since here it offers nothing tangible and sacrifices so much in practical terms as far as Betfair and quality odds goes, it appears to be misguided - you don't take a principled stand on the one hand when it directly disadvantages the customer on the other.


My opinion is that delisting Betfair is a counter-productive kneejerk reaction which offers little and takes away a lot. Much better to give gamblers all relevant information - tell them where they can play, what they can expect and everything that's happened there. They can then make informed decisions with all the available information.



0 Previous Comments


Post a Comment

Monday, February 14, 2011

Rigged blackjack: VIP Golden Club sets the new standard


Can you spot the problem? It looks fine at first: player makes blackjack, dealer draws to 21 but loses the hand.



Player makes blackjack, dealer draws to 21 but loses the hand



Look closer: after three cards, the dealer hand is on 18, and must stop. However, it doesn't stop, but continues to draw a third card. This cannot happen in any blackjack game ever invented.


However, the blackjack game at VIP Golden Club is like no other blackjack game anywhere else in the cyberverse. It is super-rigged. It is super-duper-super rigged and then some more. The following is the grisly account of my playing experience - all of which, I stress, was in play mode, with no actual money deposited.


I played 81 hands in total. At the end, I had lost 71.5 units. There were 49 single unit losses and six double downs. The dealer had 15 blackjacks to my three. A few hands tied along the way. It is in fact impossible to win a hand on this software unless you get a blackjack, even when the dealer busts, which I'll explain further down.

This represents a standard deviation swing of 6.8 which has a probability of about 1 in 200,000,000,000.


Although there are many quasi-normal dealer draws to winning totals, these are relatively insignificant when compared to the role of the "magic ace", the ace of diamonds, which appears usually when the dealer is on a bust total of greater than twelve; it's followed by several more occurances of the same card and invariably leads to a "super-bust", where the dealer busts but the player loses.


Here's an example: I have 20 and the dealer is on 16 after three cards. Cue the ace of diamonds for 17...then another for 18...then a 4 for "superbust" 22, where the dealer busts but winning 20 is not paid, and my bet is taken.



Dealer busts but my winning 20 is not paid



Here's a good example of the "magic ace" phenomenon - the dealer starts with 15...then draws five consecutive aces of diamonds:



Five consecutive aces of diamonds



The final score of 20 is impossible, as the dealer couldn't legally hit beyond 17. And of course, 17 would have sufficed to beat my hand. It also bears noting that the probability of five straight aces of diamonds is about one in 4,000,000,000.


Another "superbust": my 20 is again beaten, this time with a dealer 23, including just three "magic aces" this time:



Busted dealer 23 beats player 20



Here are some doubles all featuring the same phenomenon. In the first, the dealer's "normal" score of 18 is enough to win...but it carries on regardless with four aces of diamonds, busting with 22 but winning the hand.



18 not enough



Again, the dealer 18 is enough to win, but he trots off three more ace of diamonds:



18 not enough, three more aces



Player 21! Sadly, no joy. 21 beats a dealer four-card 20 in most games, but not today. The dealer receives three more ace of diamonds, busts, doesn't pay my hand, and after I reload the screen, the money is again vanished:



Dealer 20 beats player 21



One last example. I make 19, the dealer's two-card 14 receives the two "magic aces" for 16, followed by a bust on 22 with 6...and takes my bet:



Dealer 22 beats player 19



Sorry, can't resist just one more. This might be the best of the bunch, as it's the only hand that to date I'd managed to successfully win with: a natural blackjack...but which lost on this occasion. Talk about kicking a man when he's down.



Player blackjack loses to dealer 17



Note that the dealer's initial two-card score contains the dreaded "magic ace", a sure sign that things are going to end badly for the player. Sure enough, another magic ace and a three later, he makes soft 17...and "beats" my blackjack.



If you'd like to experience for yourself the most rigged blackjack game since the dawn of time, here's the free play loading page.


And whatever you do, come rain, shine, hell or highwater, do NOT deposit money with VIP Golden Club Casino.



9 Previous Comments


lol I just tried it your right, There must be 26 aces of diaminds in that pack

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:45 am  


I wonder if Microgaming have ant idea that they have copied some of thier slots.
Ladies Night plus others

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:14 pm  


Another game-copying issue from last year that I wrote about:

Jackpots Heaven

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 5:20 pm  


Hi
I can't see what you are talking about , the game is disabled and they have another black jack and its working fine , so what is this all about
William

By Blogger William, at 9:31 am  


The new game is just as screwed up, I'm afraid. I just took another look.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 3:22 am  


That is hilarious. I tried to see it for myself but sadly it seems mostly fixed, although there are still a few bugs. The dealer drew a 3rd card after hitting a blackjack vs my 21, but no matter - it still counted it as a blackjack!

If you go to the developer's website you can even login to the admin interface on a demo account. There you will a page where it allows you to set the chance of a player winning, or even bank a certain proportion of every bet so that it is unavailable for other players to ever win. Totally rogue cheating software.

I posted a few more screenshots including the admin settings here:
Cheating casino software: Casino Web Scripts

By Anonymous CL-Ed, at 5:51 am  


Yes, I did a followup article on the new game, including the "dealer hits blackjack" hand.

Michael Shakleford has now blacklisted them.

Seems a tinpot operation, so I can't imagine many people play there.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 2:45 pm  


So how much are you being paid to write this kind of articles ? Or you just do it for the common sense of helping other people ?

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:21 pm  


Noone pays me to write, this is my own site. I write about matters that either interest me, or that I think need airing.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 10:27 pm  


Post a Comment

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Cassava / 888.com: funds stolen after player receives personalised invitation to play


Cassava / 888.com has a chequered history of player problems and outrageous marketing techniques. It has recently, and not a little bemusingly, been accepted into the Casinomeister pre-accredition list, and one might expect to see an improvement in their modus operandi as a result.


Sadly, not to be.


As reported in the Cassava stole my £2,000 winnings discussion at Casinomeister, 888.com is indulging in shabby behaviour on the back of dirty marketing practices:



I signed up to 888 casino and lost some money just before xmas, then after that I kept on getting emails/popups to sign up at other casinos with the promise of bonuses for my first deposit!

The first one was SpinWin, I played the games I was allowed to play, finished their rollover and I won about £1000 I think, so I thought that was great obviously, just before xmas too!

Whilst waiting for my winnings to be paid to me, another offer came up for Eurocity, after being massively up I got brave and started to bet big, and managed to get my balance up to around just under €2k!! I had to finish their 'rollover' thing again, but when I went to sign in the next day my account was blocked!

After loads of emails/calls and advice from my friend who works for a lawyers, (who said they have no right to take my winnings if I followed their rules) I was told that as I have signed up to casinos in the same group, they will not be paying me any of my winnings! Even though they bombarded me with emails/popups telling me to sign up!


Surely this is bordering on criminal? They quoted me this term;


In the event that the Company believes a user of the Service is abusing or attempting to abuse a bonus or other promotion, or is likely to benefit through abuse or lack of good faith from a gambling policy adopted by the Company, then the Company may, at its sole discretion, deny, withhold or withdraw from any user any bonus or promotion, or rescind any policy with respect to that user, either temporarily or permanently, or terminate that user's access to the Services and/or block that user's account.



Although Spin Win quoted the above clause, the closest rule I can find relating to this incident is the one sitting directly below it in the terms page:



10. Bonuses

The opening of multiple accounts on the Website or on any other sites owned and/or operated by the Company in bad faith and for the purpose of taking unfair advantage of the Company's welcome bonuses shall be considered an abusive behavior.



So in a nutshell: after playing at 888.com, the player was invited to play at some of the 888 sister sites. However, the invitations were essentially fraudulent, as the above term makes it basically against the rules to open accounts at more than one of these skins - the caveat of exactly what represents "bad faith" and "taking unfair advanatage" is defined nowhere, and one assumes that they simply mean "winning with a bonus". It was equally essentially fraudulent on the part of 888.com to pass the player's details over to the sister sites in the first place (as they evidently did), as this was a direct invitation to break the rules.


However, neither 888's responsibility in forwarding the player's details to these white label skins, nor the invitation to break the rules it represented, was acknowledged by the casino rep; she had this to say:



8th February 2011, 08:39 PM

The issue here does not stem from 888casino, it is from one of the Cassava white labels. Anything outside of 888casino and Reef Club Casino is out of my jurisdiction.



Nice.


So, 888.com sends its customers' details to its sister sites in order that they can then invite the players to open accounts which contravene the terms and conditions, and from which winnings can therefore never be cashed out.


But 888.com has no responsibility in this.


It also bears considering that although the term about "The opening of multiple accounts...at any other sites owned and/or operated by the Company" is listed in the terms, what is not listed is the actual sites themselves. The closest indication is a graphic at the bottom of the page of some, but not all, of the clones, which says "powered by 888 Holdings".


However, in order to remove any ambiguity about which sites may not be patronised the casinos should list them all. Yet they do not.


Why not?


It's extremely reasonable to speculate that 888.com and its white label clone sites are happy for customers to open accounts at as many of them as possible...as long as they lose. As soon as they go to cash out - assuming they've accepted a sign up bonus, which is invariably the case - they'll be told they broke the rules, those same rules that 888.com encouraged them to break in the first place.


What a dreadful group this is. Stay away from 888.com.



8 Previous Comments


888 is the safest and most rewarding casino i've ever played.

By Blogger Bryan Martin, at 1:28 pm  


888 is the safest and most rewarding casino i've ever played.

By Blogger Bryan Martin, at 1:28 pm  


Re: 888 poker have stolen my money!
Can anyone help me.

I have no account with 888 but nearly £200,000.00 has been taken from my bank account by cassava over a 5 month period. There are about 100 transactions for amounts between £200 and £5000 per transaction.

I don't gamble and don't even have an account with any online gaming site.

I was out if the uk during this time so did not understand what was happening till I retuned home to find my cards did not work. I checked with my bank and they said cassava Gibraltar had took the payments. I tried to find contact details for cassava online but had no success but found out they are part of 888 holdings. So I contacted them and they said they would look into the matter as they take this matter very seriously. 2 weeks have passed and I've sent many emails but they just ignor me.

I can see from online complaints that this sort of thing is very common for 888. Seems they are just a bunch if thieves. I feel like tracking down the owners and confronting them but I'm not sure I could control myself.

Also, this was a business account that they took the money from so even if someone used my identity to create the accounts 888 should not accept debits from a business account.

I'm going to take legal action against them but as they are not within the uk I think it may be difficult to take action against them

Is there any governing body who can force them to take action and investigate.

Any help would be appreciated and I offer a very generous reward should I be successful in getting my money back

By Blogger Sepideh Sarabandi, at 3:19 pm  


Re: 888 poker have stolen my money!
Can anyone help me.

I have no account with 888 but nearly £200,000.00 has been taken from my bank account by cassava over a 5 month period. There are about 100 transactions for amounts between £200 and £5000 per transaction.

I don't gamble and don't even have an account with any online gaming site.

I was out if the uk during this time so did not understand what was happening till I retuned home to find my cards did not work. I checked with my bank and they said cassava Gibraltar had took the payments. I tried to find contact details for cassava online but had no success but found out they are part of 888 holdings. So I contacted them and they said they would look into the matter as they take this matter very seriously. 2 weeks have passed and I've sent many emails but they just ignor me.

I can see from online complaints that this sort of thing is very common for 888. Seems they are just a bunch if thieves. I feel like tracking down the owners and confronting them but I'm not sure I could control myself.

Also, this was a business account that they took the money from so even if someone used my identity to create the accounts 888 should not accept debits from a business account.

I'm going to take legal action against them but as they are not within the uk I think it may be difficult to take action against them

Is there any governing body who can force them to take action and investigate.

Any help would be appreciated and I offer a very generous reward should I be successful in getting my money back

By Blogger Sepideh Sarabandi, at 3:19 pm  


Sepideh,

Send an email to me at admin@hundredpercentgambling.com with as much detail as you can, and I'll see what I can suggest.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 1:34 pm  


This law is just asking for an inevitable solution, whether it be the eventual legalization of online gambling due to the goverment's inability to implement, or whether it be pushed underground, forcing the normal law abiding Kuala Lumpur, Malysia citizen to become a "criminal", while in pursuit of a favorite game, hobby or recreational activity which they love, and which has been accepted by millions as a part of normal life and freedom of choice.12win casino malaysia

By Blogger Samsaung, at 11:16 pm  


Found the shill.

By Blogger Unknown, at 1:10 pm  


Found the shill.

By Blogger Unknown, at 1:10 pm  


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 | Atom feed
© 2005 hundred percent gambling

ONLINE CASINO NEWS

• Online casino news


2016

• Can't split 10s?
• Overbetting
• EV charts
• The IPCA
• Basic strategy master
• Back to the future
• Site hack

2015

• Better comp value
• Pit bosses are a pest
• 32Red buys Roxy Palace
• Winneronline is gone
• Paradise Win Casino
• Blackjack simple strategy

2014

• Court refuses Ivey winnings
• Phil Ivey versus Crockfords
• 32Red does the right thing
• Wizard Of Odds sold
• Gambling addict sues Ritz
• Better blackjack conditions
• FL: the beat goes on
• Phil Ivey and the Borgata
• LadbrokesFOBT profit
• Chat with the Met
• "Bonus abuse" and the Met
• Casino industry crooks.
• Debate to curb the FOBTs
• Labour idea to ban FOBTs

2013

• Ruby Fortune: terms buried
• Royal Vegas: bad outcome
• Russia illegalises gambling
• RV: player breaks no rules
• Gib casinos and UK laws
• The GGC (GRA) useless
• BetFred rigged games 9
• BetFred rigged games 8
• Betfred rigged games 7
• BetFred rigged games 6
• BetFred rigged games 5
• BetFred rigged games 4
• Phil Ivey: is he entitled?
• BetFred rigged games 3
• Betfred rigged games 2
• BetFred: rigged games 1
•  UK GLA Act 2013
• 888.com and Facebook
• Crockfords denies Phil Ivey
• Bad dealers
• Betfair Blackjack test
• Playtech software update
• Cheap blackjack
• Hippodrome Casino

2012

• The UK's FOBT addiction
• Conan Casino beware
• Intercasino misleading
• Fortune Lounge
• UK Gambling Commission

2011

• Small Claims Court
• Gamcare
• Full Tilt Poker saved
• Full Tilt ponzi scheme
• Casino Barcelona
• Irakli Kacharava
• Betfair processor no pay
• Full Tilt licensing meeting
• UK Gambling Commission
• Full Tilt Poker investors
• Full Tilt license suspended
• Twitter
• Betfair resolution
• Casino Web Scripts 2
• 32Red bonus marketing
• Casino Web Scripts 1
• Poker domains seized
• eCOGRA independent?
• Easystreet Sports theft
• Betfair to Gibraltar
• Rigged blackjack 2
• Betfair responses
• Rigged blackjack
• 888.com theft
• Betfair poker problem
• UK gambling controls
• Harry Reid

2010

• eWallet Xpress
• Kevin Stillmock
• Blog back up
• Betfair happy hour
• Ladbrokes bonus increase
• Absolute Poker tricks US
• Absolute Poker rigged
• Last position no difference
• Basic strategy simplified
• Online casino bonuses
• Righthaven LLC
• Ladbrokes bonus rules
• Malta LGA nonsense
• Purple Lounge theft
• UK affiliates issue
• Online casino problems
• GPWA code of conduct
• One Club Casino problems
• Rushmore theft resolved
• Realtime Gaming cheats
• Absolute Poker Ultimate Bet
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Ask gamblers service
• Intercasino bonus terms
• Profitting from poverty
• Gambling dooms UK to ruin
• Want To Stop Gambling
• Gambling Therapy
• Gordon Moody Association
• Breakeven
• Online gambling jobs
• Gamblock
• Gamble Aware
• Gamblers Anonymous
• Gamcare
• Video poker auto hold
• Gambling Wages help offer
• Blackjack double down
• Intercasino rules
• Tradition Casino warning
• Tradition Casino problem
• Be The Dealer
• eCOGRA approved casinos
• UK underage gambling
• iGaming Super Show
• eCOGRA reputable portals
• eCOGRA exposed
• Slots Oasis warning
• Slots Oasis problem
• HR 2267 comments
• HR 2267 proposed bill
• Search fully functional
• Gambling hearing delayed
• Betfair download blackjack
• Betfair blackjack
• The Federal Wie Act
• Casino Rewards warning
• Kahnawake dumps GP
• GP dumps Microgaming
• UK online gambling
• Gambling checklist
• Online casino problems
• Gambling Grumbles
• Casino Rewards
• Brian Cullingworth
• Casino Wager Tracker
• Grand Prive affiliates
• Jackpots Heaven Casino
• Kahnawake commission
• UK gambling problem
• eCOGRA and Grand Prive
• Bet365 misleading bonus
• Mastercard and Visa
• Online gambling rules
• 32Red sign up bonus
• Ladbrokes data theft
• Ladbrokes unfair settlement
• Palace group bonus rules
• Grand Prive and eCOGRA

2009

• Blackjack in the UK
• Seminole Hard Rock
• The APCW and MG
• Sportsbook.com
• Slot beaters slot strategy
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Paddy Power affiliates
• Slots
• 888.com problem
• The UIGEA
• Neteller contest winner
• 888.com bonus problem
• Casino Club meeting
• Online casino directory
• 32Red debit card bonus
• Blue Square Casino
• Budapest Affiliate Expo
• Rushmore payment issues
• Modern Blackjack volume 1
• Eurolinx certain insolvency
• Buzzluck winnings theft
• PaddyPower removed
• 32Red lawsuit
• William Hill Casino Club
• Betfair video poker
• APCW underage children
• Odds page updates
• VP Genius
• Video poker page updates
• Blackjack page updates
• Progression page updates
• Single deck page updates
• Betfair Playtech license
• Cherry Red Casino
• Online gambling debate
• William Hill & Teddy Sagi
• Rogue casinos section
• Pontoon correction
• Microgaming poker scandal
• Casino Club confiscation
• Casino Club steals €8000
• Villa Fortuna Casino
• Grand Prive affiliate issue
• CAP and Cardspike 2
• Virgin Casino bad results
• CAP and Cardspike 1

2008

• iNetbet removal from site
• Mario Galea and Malta LGA
• Cold Mountain Resort
• The AGCC
• Moneybookers privacy
• Virtual Casino rebranding
• Captain Jack Casino
• Royal Ace Casino
• Ringmaster Casino
• Catseye Casino
• Lucky Palm Casino
• Pharaohs Gold Casino
• Goldstream Casino
• Plantet 7 Casino
• Betfair bonus confiscation
• Malta LGA worthless
• The GIA
• Interwetten theft of £5000
• Lucky Ace winnings stolen
• The KGC and Absolute

2007

• HippoJo Casino
• Microgaming All Aces VP
• Neteller issues
• Lou Fabiano responds
• Lou Fabiano selling stats
• Betfair Zero Lounge
• ICE 2007 brief visit
• RTG cancels ICE visit

2006

• Crystal Palace Casino theft
• eCOGRA & Jackpot Factory
• English Harbour cheating
• Boss Media single deck
• Bella Vegas / Grand Prive
• The KGC worthless
• Gambling Federation
• Playtech sued
• Meeting Andrew Beveridge
• Playtech confirmed listing
• African Palace Casino
• G-Fed ICE discussion
• Playtech ICE meeting
• Playtech issues escalation
• Chartwell hands off

2005

• Crystal Gaming silence
• Price Waterhouse Cooper
• Crystal Gaming flotation 2
• Vegas Frontier
• Crystal Gaming flotation 1
• Playtech public listing
• African Palace & Indio
• Kiwi Casino
• Rochester Casino
• G-Fed theft 2
• Warren Cloud best avoided
• Golden Palace stupidity 3
• Golden Palace stupidity 2
• G-Fed theft 1
• Golden Palace stupidity 1
• Russia online expansion
• Wan Doy Pairs Poker
• Microgaming CPU usage
• Net Entertainment RNG
• Cryptologic & William Hill
• Casino growth slow
• English Harbour paying
• Fraudster or not
• Blackjack surrender
• Integrity casino group audit