This isn't relevant in my case since I was never asked to stop playing any game.
You have been asked to stop playing all games. I think we're done here.
Topic: StrikeSapphire | We need some support. (Read 6753 times)
You have been asked to stop playing all games. I think we're done here.
Quote
however, the casino reserves the right to request any player cease playing any game, and/or to remove any game from circulation or alter its stated odds structure at any time without warning or consent.
This isn't relevant in my case since I was never asked to stop playing any game.
Quote
If the Casino should find that any information given by a player is false, the Casino reserves the right to suspend the player's account along with all funds. The player's account will remain suspended until such time as the Casino has determined to its satisfaction that the player's information was authentic and accurate.
This also isnt relevant, since the casino didn't find that information we had given was false. The casino just got mad, leapt to incorrect conclusions and made crazy unfounded accusations. At no point was I asked for proof of identity. And neither was my allegedly imaginary girlfriend.
Quote
Multiple players may play at the casino from the same IP address, provided they are not on the same computer or members of the same household (for instance, multiple players may join from a single internet cafe); however, players are hereby warned that should two players at the same IP address join the same table, their risk of being investigated for collusive behavior is more than doubled, and the burden of proof is on the players in such instances to demonstrate that they were not colluding.
Is it ever possible to prove people aren't colluding? What evidence could possibly show that I didn't have a secret channel of communication with another player? That condition would seem to be unenforceable. The "not on the same computer" is unclear. Does it mean two people can't share a computer at the same time, or ever? Is it OK for one to log off and the other to log onto the same computer? Either way, we cleared the "same household" thing with Josh before I even signed up since the system banned us both when I first attempted to sign up from the same IP address as pet.
ssaCEO I think you might need to update your sites rules and terms so everyone is clear on what is allowed and tolerated.
Our TOS says:
Quote
We recognize, and treat differently, two different types of "advantage play":
The first type occurs when a player gains a mathematical advantage over the house. Examples are card counting and, in the case of some of our games, manipulating pay tables in ways that are unintended results of our algorithms or controls. This does not include making alterations to our client software or attempting to hack the site; simply mathematical prowess. The Casino respects mathematical prowess, and shall not deprive any winner of earnings gained by leveraging a found mathematical advantage in one of our games; however, the casino reserves the right to request any player cease playing any game, and/or to remove any game from circulation or alter its stated odds structure at any time without warning or consent.
The first type occurs when a player gains a mathematical advantage over the house. Examples are card counting and, in the case of some of our games, manipulating pay tables in ways that are unintended results of our algorithms or controls. This does not include making alterations to our client software or attempting to hack the site; simply mathematical prowess. The Casino respects mathematical prowess, and shall not deprive any winner of earnings gained by leveraging a found mathematical advantage in one of our games; however, the casino reserves the right to request any player cease playing any game, and/or to remove any game from circulation or alter its stated odds structure at any time without warning or consent.
It also says:
Quote
By creating an account, a player guarantees the truth and accuracy of all information submitted. If the Casino should find that any information given by a player is false, the Casino reserves the right to suspend the player's account along with all funds. The player's account will remain suspended until such time as the Casino has determined to its satisfaction that the player's information was authentic and accurate.
And this:
Quote
Multiple players may play at the casino from the same IP address, provided they are not on the same computer or members of the same household (for instance, multiple players may join from a single internet cafe); however, players are hereby warned that should two players at the same IP address join the same table, their risk of being investigated for collusive behavior is more than doubled, and the burden of proof is on the players in such instances to demonstrate that they were not colluding.
There's nothing yet in there about being a troll, but I'm strongly considering adding a paragraph. For now, I think it's covered by:
Quote
The Casino reserves the right to refuse membership or to freeze an existing member's playing privileges without cause, at the Casino's sole discretion.
ssaCEO I think you might need to update your sites rules and terms so everyone is clear on what is allowed and tolerated.
Good luck.
Good luck.
SapphireHouse: you guys switch tables often when the number gets low
SapphireHouse: we allow that
SapphireHouse: we allow that
How you got that we were cool with you counting cards out of that is emblematic of many of the issues you've had with us.
When you said that you allow me to switch tables when the count goes bad, that's what made me think you were cool with it. I took the "for some reason" to mean that you personally weren't OK with it, but that your boss Josh was, and so you had to allow it.
Also, Josh giving pet (bad) advice on how to count cards more effectively implies pretty strongly that he both knows about and allows the strategy:
Quote
joshstrike (MOD): I was telling her, if you're gonna count cards
joshstrike (MOD): you're better off sticking to one table
joshstrike (MOD): and moderating your bet
joshstrike (MOD): b/c a new table is a total unknown for the first few hands.
joshstrike (MOD): you're better off sticking to one table
joshstrike (MOD): and moderating your bet
joshstrike (MOD): b/c a new table is a total unknown for the first few hands.
I had other conversations with Josh in which he made it clear that he was OK with me counting, but that was before I realised that keeping records of my interactions with him might be useful.
Here's another public poker room chat with your moderator Jonathon on June 16th 2012 in which he tells me explicitly that you allow counting:
Quote
dooglus: oh, fragile - I was wondering is it deliberate that petres and I can't play blackjack together too?
dooglus: there's no collusion possibility there
a75rtuga: lol
SapphireHouse: there is collusion possibility thre
SapphireHouse: there
dooglus: how?
SapphireHouse: counting cards
SapphireHouse: you guys switch tables often when the number gets low
SapphireHouse: we allow that
dooglus: hmm
SapphireHouse: for some reason
SapphireHouse: not going to let you sit there and play six or whatever
dooglus: I see
dooglus: so it's about limiting the effective max bet
dooglus: that makes sense
dooglus: I don't think I ever played all 3 seats at once
dooglus: so that's probably not an issue
dooglus: but I understand now
dooglus: there's no collusion possibility there
a75rtuga: lol
SapphireHouse: there is collusion possibility thre
SapphireHouse: there
dooglus: how?
SapphireHouse: counting cards
SapphireHouse: you guys switch tables often when the number gets low
SapphireHouse: we allow that
dooglus: hmm
SapphireHouse: for some reason
SapphireHouse: not going to let you sit there and play six or whatever
dooglus: I see
dooglus: so it's about limiting the effective max bet
dooglus: that makes sense
dooglus: I don't think I ever played all 3 seats at once
dooglus: so that's probably not an issue
dooglus: but I understand now
You're asking me why you can't play on the same blackjack table as someone in the same room as you because there's no possibility of collusion. I respond by telling you there is a great issue with collusion in that scenario. You ask me how? I give you the answer: counting cards, or in other words, the reason you can't play with your girlfriend, the reason there's a chance for collusion. I go on to say that you guys switch tables when you think it benefits you, which we allow (for some reason). Obviously I'm not happy that you're moving tables every four hands (that should be clear). However, I'm not going to let you sit there and play all six hands because its too easy to count cards.
How you got that we were cool with you counting cards out of that is emblematic of many of the issues you've had with us.
I'd love to give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's a simple issue with miscommunication on the internet, as often happens. Except if you're playing blackjack (anywhere), you should have a reasonable understanding that the house doesn't take kindly to folks who count cards, and that the house isn't going to tolerate somebody using that angle if they're successful. It's apparent you don't grasp this as an issue; unfortunately, it's this precise level of ignorance (wink) that has caused many of the problems that plagued your time on our website.
The fact that your card counting was barely a blip on the radar of warning signs we got from your play on our site should be a clear indication as to why you aren't welcome any longer.
It's yet another thing to set up petrescuerz to do the same thing and/or to do this with two separate accounts. Where does that end? Why would we want that to continue growing and metastasizing?
I understand. You're trying to make money. It makes good business sense not to tolerate people winning regularly if you can somehow get away with such a strategy without looking bad.
You're trying to challenge this on technical grounds as to whether you violated any of our terms, but we're past that. There's an attitudinal problem with a player who does all these things at the same time. We're talking now about the totality of your actions, the meaning behind them, and our right to refuse you service. I hope this clarifies our position and you understand why we've asked you to leave.
I accept your right to ban me and am happy to stay away. I don't accept that I did anything wrong or against the spirit of the rules. If using my brain is wrong I don't wanna be right.
It's one thing to count cards. It's another to open six tables at a time and continuously switch between them, logging out to clear them when you've used up the maximum number of tables. We may very well ask people to stop playing for that reason in the future, if anyone else actually did it. In your case we sat back and watched to see if it would work. We changed our shuffle to earlier in the deck because we wanted to know if that would change your playing behavior. You didn't let on that you knew it, but obviously you did. When you saw the next day's shuffle stats, you stopped playing. Which says to me that you won't play under normal conditions, even when you can still count at least 6 hands into a six card shoe which is plenty more of a buffer than you get in a regular casino with a continuous shuffle (and 5 hands more than at any other online casino). That seems a bit greedy.
It's another thing to leverage your card counting into winning tournaments in conjunction with last-second bets, holding cash on tables, and any other ways you can find to bend the spirit of the rules. Perhaps if some of your play was only to leverage one advantage (card-counting, or last-minute betting), rather than both advantages, and fell outside at least one of those two categories, it wouldn't have been quite as abusive.
It's yet another thing to set up petrescuerz to do the same thing and/or to do this with two separate accounts. Where does that end? Why would we want that to continue growing and metastasizing?
Finally, making snide comments in our threads about our security protocols while we're letting you do all of the above crossed a line which led me to blow a fuse. Again I apologize for the outburst and the lack of tact. I really should have been more cool-headed about it. Like I said, I am not the best guy at PR, but I'm trying to learn from my mistakes.
You're trying to challenge this on technical grounds as to whether you violated any of our terms, but we're past that. There's an attitudinal problem with a player who does all these things at the same time. We're talking now about the totality of your actions, the meaning behind them, and our right to refuse you service. I hope this clarifies our position and you understand why we've asked you to leave.
It's another thing to leverage your card counting into winning tournaments in conjunction with last-second bets, holding cash on tables, and any other ways you can find to bend the spirit of the rules. Perhaps if some of your play was only to leverage one advantage (card-counting, or last-minute betting), rather than both advantages, and fell outside at least one of those two categories, it wouldn't have been quite as abusive.
It's yet another thing to set up petrescuerz to do the same thing and/or to do this with two separate accounts. Where does that end? Why would we want that to continue growing and metastasizing?
Finally, making snide comments in our threads about our security protocols while we're letting you do all of the above crossed a line which led me to blow a fuse. Again I apologize for the outburst and the lack of tact. I really should have been more cool-headed about it. Like I said, I am not the best guy at PR, but I'm trying to learn from my mistakes.
You're trying to challenge this on technical grounds as to whether you violated any of our terms, but we're past that. There's an attitudinal problem with a player who does all these things at the same time. We're talking now about the totality of your actions, the meaning behind them, and our right to refuse you service. I hope this clarifies our position and you understand why we've asked you to leave.
[...], ends w/ Dooglus talking about how he beat our system by counting cards which was just another of many issues we had with him.
I never hid the fact that I was counting cards. I discussed it with you publicly several times. And your T&C even say it's OK. Here's a poker table chat from May 23rd 2012, in which you say (1) that it's fine for me to continue attempting to win tournaments using the tactics I had been using up to then (2) that you no longer suspected Doug and I of being the same person and (3) that you know pet and I are counting cards, but that you think were doing it wrong.
Quote
dooglus: josh: I emailed you asking if you wanted me to back off on the tournament but didn't get a reply
joshstrike (MOD): Right, I was going to respond,
joshstrike (MOD): don't. Do your thing.
bonjin: maybe should make the target $25.01
bonjin:
joshstrike (MOD): actually we talked about $30, yeah.
dooglus: what if I make and win a last minute $25 blackjack bet and win it. won't you get an ulcer?
joshstrike (MOD): but we do have the new $15 blackjack table open to everyone
joshstrike (MOD): no, doog, you can do that.
joshstrike (MOD): you know the issue was about the conversation we had prior to that
dooglus: ok
joshstrike (MOD): we aren't cracking down on last-minute bets or anything like that.
dooglus: by the way, I noticed yesterday that I had emailed you about "doug" about a week ago. if you search emails from me, I've only said "doug" once to y
dooglus: ou
a75rtuga: KKQQQ
dooglus: re. the doog/doug confusion
joshstrike (MOD): @bonjin but $30 seemed too high
bonjin: yeah could be too high
joshstrike (MOD): @doog I got it sorted out, finally
dooglus: good
joshstrike (MOD): $25 puts you and doog on an equal 1-bet basis to tie
joshstrike (MOD): and puts non-star players one bet away from beating you
dooglus: pet likes the new blackjack table
bonjin: that $15 blackjack killed me yesterday
bonjin: dealer kept hitting blackjack or 20
dooglus: she had a big run of cards where she couldn't lose
dooglus: then a big run where that's all shoe could do
dooglus: she* lol
bonjin: yeah, it does seem to go in runs
joshstrike (MOD): was she still switching off tables?
a75rtuga: nh guys!
dooglus: I think so
dooglus: these "runs" were tables
joshstrike (MOD): I don't know if that strategy really helps
dooglus: me neither
dooglus: it doesn't seem to work for me
joshstrike (MOD): I was telling her, if you're gonna count cards
dooglus: I'm $50 down on blackjack still, even after that $20 win
joshstrike (MOD): you're better off sticking to one table
joshstrike (MOD): and moderating your bet
joshstrike (MOD): b/c a new table is a total unknown for the first few hands.
dooglus: but aren't you better on a neutral table than a 'cold' one?
joshstrike (MOD): of course this requires betting more than the minimum per hand
joshstrike (MOD): no, a cold one is a known quantity, just bet low
dooglus: hmm
joshstrike (MOD): also what you consider cold is sometimes only +3 to +5. I don't think you're counting right.
joshstrike (MOD): believe me, we checked =)
bonjin: does counting work on online casinos like this?
joshstrike (MOD): in ours it does.
joshstrike (MOD): most of the time, no
joshstrike (MOD): but we use a six deck shoe that goes from one hand to the next.
bonjin: ok
bonjin: gg
a75rtuga: hey pm! :O
a75rtuga: gg
joshstrike (MOD): we don't tell you when it gets shuffled, but we do show it the next day
joshstrike (MOD): most online casinos just use a new deck for every hand.
joshstrike (MOD): we're the only one I know of that doesn't.
bonjin: might need to learn more about this. lol
joshstrike (MOD): but as doog discovered, we do also burn a card between each deal.
bonjin: what does that mean?
joshstrike (MOD): we discard one from the deck before each hand.
joshstrike (MOD): all together this does increase your odds as a player
joshstrike (MOD): but only to the point of playing in a real casino on a six deck shoe
joshstrike (MOD): in other words it's better than a continuous shuffler.
a75rtuga: hey
EasyJest: it sure is
joshstrike (MOD): Right, I was going to respond,
joshstrike (MOD): don't. Do your thing.
bonjin: maybe should make the target $25.01
bonjin:
joshstrike (MOD): actually we talked about $30, yeah.
dooglus: what if I make and win a last minute $25 blackjack bet and win it. won't you get an ulcer?
joshstrike (MOD): but we do have the new $15 blackjack table open to everyone
joshstrike (MOD): no, doog, you can do that.
joshstrike (MOD): you know the issue was about the conversation we had prior to that
dooglus: ok
joshstrike (MOD): we aren't cracking down on last-minute bets or anything like that.
dooglus: by the way, I noticed yesterday that I had emailed you about "doug" about a week ago. if you search emails from me, I've only said "doug" once to y
dooglus: ou
a75rtuga: KKQQQ
dooglus: re. the doog/doug confusion
joshstrike (MOD): @bonjin but $30 seemed too high
bonjin: yeah could be too high
joshstrike (MOD): @doog I got it sorted out, finally
dooglus: good
joshstrike (MOD): $25 puts you and doog on an equal 1-bet basis to tie
joshstrike (MOD): and puts non-star players one bet away from beating you
dooglus: pet likes the new blackjack table
bonjin: that $15 blackjack killed me yesterday
bonjin: dealer kept hitting blackjack or 20
dooglus: she had a big run of cards where she couldn't lose
dooglus: then a big run where that's all shoe could do
dooglus: she* lol
bonjin: yeah, it does seem to go in runs
joshstrike (MOD): was she still switching off tables?
a75rtuga: nh guys!
dooglus: I think so
dooglus: these "runs" were tables
joshstrike (MOD): I don't know if that strategy really helps
dooglus: me neither
dooglus: it doesn't seem to work for me
joshstrike (MOD): I was telling her, if you're gonna count cards
dooglus: I'm $50 down on blackjack still, even after that $20 win
joshstrike (MOD): you're better off sticking to one table
joshstrike (MOD): and moderating your bet
joshstrike (MOD): b/c a new table is a total unknown for the first few hands.
dooglus: but aren't you better on a neutral table than a 'cold' one?
joshstrike (MOD): of course this requires betting more than the minimum per hand
joshstrike (MOD): no, a cold one is a known quantity, just bet low
dooglus: hmm
joshstrike (MOD): also what you consider cold is sometimes only +3 to +5. I don't think you're counting right.
joshstrike (MOD): believe me, we checked =)
bonjin: does counting work on online casinos like this?
joshstrike (MOD): in ours it does.
joshstrike (MOD): most of the time, no
joshstrike (MOD): but we use a six deck shoe that goes from one hand to the next.
bonjin: ok
bonjin: gg
a75rtuga: hey pm! :O
a75rtuga: gg
joshstrike (MOD): we don't tell you when it gets shuffled, but we do show it the next day
joshstrike (MOD): most online casinos just use a new deck for every hand.
joshstrike (MOD): we're the only one I know of that doesn't.
bonjin: might need to learn more about this. lol
joshstrike (MOD): but as doog discovered, we do also burn a card between each deal.
bonjin: what does that mean?
joshstrike (MOD): we discard one from the deck before each hand.
joshstrike (MOD): all together this does increase your odds as a player
joshstrike (MOD): but only to the point of playing in a real casino on a six deck shoe
joshstrike (MOD): in other words it's better than a continuous shuffler.
a75rtuga: hey
EasyJest: it sure is
Does that look like underhand cheating to you? Or an open discussion of strategy?
Here's another public poker room chat with your moderator Jonathon on June 16th 2012 in which he tells me explicitly that you allow counting:
Quote
dooglus: oh, fragile - I was wondering is it deliberate that petres and I can't play blackjack together too?
dooglus: there's no collusion possibility there
a75rtuga: lol
SapphireHouse: there is collusion possibility thre
SapphireHouse: there
dooglus: how?
SapphireHouse: counting cards
SapphireHouse: you guys switch tables often when the number gets low
SapphireHouse: we allow that
dooglus: hmm
SapphireHouse: for some reason
SapphireHouse: not going to let you sit there and play six or whatever
dooglus: I see
dooglus: so it's about limiting the effective max bet
dooglus: that makes sense
dooglus: I don't think I ever played all 3 seats at once
dooglus: so that's probably not an issue
dooglus: but I understand now
dooglus: there's no collusion possibility there
a75rtuga: lol
SapphireHouse: there is collusion possibility thre
SapphireHouse: there
dooglus: how?
SapphireHouse: counting cards
SapphireHouse: you guys switch tables often when the number gets low
SapphireHouse: we allow that
dooglus: hmm
SapphireHouse: for some reason
SapphireHouse: not going to let you sit there and play six or whatever
dooglus: I see
dooglus: so it's about limiting the effective max bet
dooglus: that makes sense
dooglus: I don't think I ever played all 3 seats at once
dooglus: so that's probably not an issue
dooglus: but I understand now
Here are the T&C relating to card counting - this is what gave me to idea to try it initially, since you say you respect it. I've not checked the T&C since 20th June to see if they have changed. This is how they looked then.
Quote
We recognize, and treat differently, two different types of "advantage play":
The first type occurs when a player gains a mathematical advantage over the house. Examples are card counting [and ...]. The Casino respects mathematical prowess, and shall not deprive any winner of earnings gained by leveraging a found mathematical advantage in one of our games; however, the casino reserves the right to request any player cease playing any game, and/or to remove any game from circulation or alter its stated odds structure at any time without warning or consent.
The second type of AP we recognize occurs when a player discovers a bug in a game. [...]
The first type occurs when a player gains a mathematical advantage over the house. Examples are card counting [and ...]. The Casino respects mathematical prowess, and shall not deprive any winner of earnings gained by leveraging a found mathematical advantage in one of our games; however, the casino reserves the right to request any player cease playing any game, and/or to remove any game from circulation or alter its stated odds structure at any time without warning or consent.
The second type of AP we recognize occurs when a player discovers a bug in a game. [...]
If you had an issue with the way I was playing, you should have let me know about it. The only issue I heard about from you was that you thought I was doing it wrong.
Again I'll state - I don't think I did anything that you didn't encourage. You entice play with bonuses and competitions, and I played to win those bonuses and competitions. You offer to reward bug reports with player points, so I made a lot of bug reports. And you post terms saying you respect mathematical advantage, so I played the game with the best mathematical advantage.
And I'm posting in your thread again when I said I would stop.
It does look like I have to have the last word doesn't it, I'm sorry. I'll try to restrain myself now.
Just one more thing about this matter, Josh: Please refrain from commenting on any kind of referral or game stats related with my Strike Sapphire account with anyone who isn't an acting officer or employee of the company that runs the Strike Sapphire casino.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Definitely. And I'm sorry. We don't want to publish referral stats in a way that discloses the identities of affiliates or players. It came up as part of looking into the CTR on the links in Mem's thread. It was a narrow incident and the only info shared was the relative number of clicks that we thought came from the links in there. I should have been more vague about it, not given a number, and I apologize.
Just one more thing about this matter, Josh: Please refrain from commenting on any kind of referral or game stats related with my Strike Sapphire account with anyone who isn't an acting officer or employee of the company that runs the Strike Sapphire casino.
Thank you.
Thank you.
About you mem... all I can say is that all I said about you is the truth. You're nothing more than a delusional pathological liar and anything you say shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever.
I still dont get where your delusions come from ?
You lie and lie and lie, get called out on it and go quite (unable to defend your position I guess), then revert back to lying once again without ever justifying your positions. Ontop of that the childish insults..... I mean why bother even talking to me if thats your end point, I stop reading after the first one as you just deteriorate into a childish rant with no substance.
Ignoring you for now until I see a civil email explaining wtf I am lying about, as you have clearly demonstrated the moment you have an audience you cannot ignore past butt hurts.
How about you keep your nasty BFL fanboy butt hurt displays to appropriate threads, ie mining subforums.
Now please guys, break it up. Like I said, you're both valued guests and we don't want to be in the middle of anything. I'm obviously over my limit on the amount of yelling going on in my threads already (mostly my own yelling, it's true)... I'd like to avoid giving the impression that I'm running some kinda madhouse over there. I realize I set a bad tone the last couple days, but can we all be civilized and get back to business?
Done and done. Psy can either continue his ranting and ignored or discuss his personal grievances (which have no place here) in pm.
Keep rocking SS and keep that bitcoin dream alive.
I don't think my referrals were coming from mem thread but from the link I had on my forum signature. The bit.ly link stats are public and the link was clicked more than 680 times.
Probably a lot of them were. At the time I was looking into whether Mem's thread was sending any traffic to us. There were inbound clicks from his thread, but none with his affiliate code. In any case, when we looked at the behavior of the people you sent in, there was nothing odd there. I just looked again and there's nothing strange about it.
Now please guys, break it up. Like I said, you're both valued guests and we don't want to be in the middle of anything. I'm obviously over my limit on the amount of yelling going on in my threads already (mostly my own yelling, it's true)... I'd like to avoid giving the impression that I'm running some kinda madhouse over there. I realize I set a bad tone the last couple days, but can we all be civilized and get back to business?
I don't think my referrals were coming from mem thread but from the link I had on my forum signature. The bit.ly link stats are public and the link was clicked more than 680 times.
About you mem... all I can say is that all I said about you is the truth. You're nothing more than a delusional pathological liar and anything you say shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever.
About you mem... all I can say is that all I said about you is the truth. You're nothing more than a delusional pathological liar and anything you say shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever.
Okay. Everybody stay calm! Psy & Mem, this is a misunderstanding.
The Dooglus situation didn't have to do with referral abuse per se. I don't want to get into that again here... all of that is covered in the other thread, ends w/ Dooglus talking about how he beat our system by counting cards which was just another of many issues we had with him. I agree I handled it badly and lost my temper, and should have dealt with that in a better way. I agree I'm sometimes rough around the edges and not the best guy at handling PR.
However!
Mem: We never accused Psy of referral fraud. In fact I've talked with him and he's helped me with SEO tips. He's a good player on our site, has always been friendly at the tables, and he's been generous with his time. He is not under any suspicion. AFAIK he hasn't done anything wrong.
Psy: This misunderstanding arose for one reason, which was that a few months ago we got a bunch of referrals from your link in the "Mem's Gambling List" thread, but we had none from Mem's own link. I don't know why that is. I think it was the fact that your link was the most visible. I suggested to Mem that he could make his own referral link more visible to capture some of the traffic from the thread.
We looked internally at your referrals at the time to see if there were any questionable play patterns involving the referrals. There were not. We did not have further discussions about it with Mem.
I should be clear that even if Psy was telling people "hey go to this thread and click my link" that is by no means referral abuse. We're happy to have that. Referral abuse is if the accounts being referred belong to the same person. We thoroughly analyze these patterns for all referrals, and I want to stress that there is no evidence that Psy did anything unusual or was even aware that people were clicking that link.
I can understand why Mem might have taken away from this that Psy was up to something, I think at the time I wrote that we were going to look into the reasons; however as far as we were concerned after checking the reports, there were no problems, case closed. Psy does not appear on any of our internal reports and has never raised any red flags in our system.
Mem, I don't know if or what you've heard from other site owners, and we don't share information with other sites about players.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding this has caused between you guys. You're both great guests on our site and we like having both of you there. I hope this clears the air.
The Dooglus situation didn't have to do with referral abuse per se. I don't want to get into that again here... all of that is covered in the other thread, ends w/ Dooglus talking about how he beat our system by counting cards which was just another of many issues we had with him. I agree I handled it badly and lost my temper, and should have dealt with that in a better way. I agree I'm sometimes rough around the edges and not the best guy at handling PR.
However!
Mem: We never accused Psy of referral fraud. In fact I've talked with him and he's helped me with SEO tips. He's a good player on our site, has always been friendly at the tables, and he's been generous with his time. He is not under any suspicion. AFAIK he hasn't done anything wrong.
Psy: This misunderstanding arose for one reason, which was that a few months ago we got a bunch of referrals from your link in the "Mem's Gambling List" thread, but we had none from Mem's own link. I don't know why that is. I think it was the fact that your link was the most visible. I suggested to Mem that he could make his own referral link more visible to capture some of the traffic from the thread.
We looked internally at your referrals at the time to see if there were any questionable play patterns involving the referrals. There were not. We did not have further discussions about it with Mem.
I should be clear that even if Psy was telling people "hey go to this thread and click my link" that is by no means referral abuse. We're happy to have that. Referral abuse is if the accounts being referred belong to the same person. We thoroughly analyze these patterns for all referrals, and I want to stress that there is no evidence that Psy did anything unusual or was even aware that people were clicking that link.
I can understand why Mem might have taken away from this that Psy was up to something, I think at the time I wrote that we were going to look into the reasons; however as far as we were concerned after checking the reports, there were no problems, case closed. Psy does not appear on any of our internal reports and has never raised any red flags in our system.
Mem, I don't know if or what you've heard from other site owners, and we don't share information with other sites about players.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding this has caused between you guys. You're both great guests on our site and we like having both of you there. I hope this clears the air.
Well thank you for clearing up that confusion, we all have our bad days (try not to have them at work if you can
).Running an online/other casino means you will have players rock up with their systems (or looking for exploits). I do it myself (see my satoshidice bot). It is up to the casino to ensure a profit, sure live casino's can and will kick you out (2x for me) but they will wear the bad PR if handled bad.
If card counting is indeed an issue, so be it or up the deck count or ban the player.
Glad to see the thread is back on track, Psy I hope this has cleared up any confusion.
Dooglus I hope you get a satisfactory resolution, I hope you do not get banned but please note I consider site bans the right of the casino operator and it would not keep a site out of my list (refusing to payout any wins however would).
Okay. Everybody stay calm! Psy & Mem, this is a misunderstanding.
The Dooglus situation didn't have to do with referral abuse per se. I don't want to get into that again here... all of that is covered in the other thread, ends w/ Dooglus talking about how he beat our system by counting cards which was just another of many issues we had with him. I agree I handled it badly and lost my temper, and should have dealt with that in a better way. I agree I'm sometimes rough around the edges and not the best guy at handling PR.
However!
Mem: We never accused Psy of referral fraud. In fact I've talked with him and he's helped me with SEO tips. He's a good player on our site, has always been friendly at the tables, and he's been generous with his time. He is not under any suspicion. AFAIK he hasn't done anything wrong.
Psy: This misunderstanding arose for one reason, which was that a few months ago we got a bunch of referrals from your link in the "Mem's Gambling List" thread, but we had none from Mem's own link. I don't know why that is. I think it was the fact that your link was the most visible. I suggested to Mem that he could make his own referral link more visible to capture some of the traffic from the thread.
We looked internally at your referrals at the time to see if there were any questionable play patterns involving the referrals. There were not. We did not have further discussions about it with Mem.
I should be clear that even if Psy was telling people "hey go to this thread and click my link" that is by no means referral abuse. We're happy to have that. Referral abuse is if the accounts being referred belong to the same person. We thoroughly analyze these patterns for all referrals, and I want to stress that there is no evidence that Psy did anything unusual or was even aware that people were clicking that link.
I can understand why Mem might have taken away from this that Psy was up to something, I think at the time I wrote that we were going to look into the reasons; however as far as we were concerned after checking the reports, there were no problems, case closed. Psy does not appear on any of our internal reports and has never raised any red flags in our system.
Mem, I don't know if or what you've heard from other site owners, and we don't share information with other sites about players.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding this has caused between you guys. You're both great guests on our site and we like having both of you there. I hope this clears the air.
The Dooglus situation didn't have to do with referral abuse per se. I don't want to get into that again here... all of that is covered in the other thread, ends w/ Dooglus talking about how he beat our system by counting cards which was just another of many issues we had with him. I agree I handled it badly and lost my temper, and should have dealt with that in a better way. I agree I'm sometimes rough around the edges and not the best guy at handling PR.
However!
Mem: We never accused Psy of referral fraud. In fact I've talked with him and he's helped me with SEO tips. He's a good player on our site, has always been friendly at the tables, and he's been generous with his time. He is not under any suspicion. AFAIK he hasn't done anything wrong.
Psy: This misunderstanding arose for one reason, which was that a few months ago we got a bunch of referrals from your link in the "Mem's Gambling List" thread, but we had none from Mem's own link. I don't know why that is. I think it was the fact that your link was the most visible. I suggested to Mem that he could make his own referral link more visible to capture some of the traffic from the thread.
We looked internally at your referrals at the time to see if there were any questionable play patterns involving the referrals. There were not. We did not have further discussions about it with Mem.
I should be clear that even if Psy was telling people "hey go to this thread and click my link" that is by no means referral abuse. We're happy to have that. Referral abuse is if the accounts being referred belong to the same person. We thoroughly analyze these patterns for all referrals, and I want to stress that there is no evidence that Psy did anything unusual or was even aware that people were clicking that link.
I can understand why Mem might have taken away from this that Psy was up to something, I think at the time I wrote that we were going to look into the reasons; however as far as we were concerned after checking the reports, there were no problems, case closed. Psy does not appear on any of our internal reports and has never raised any red flags in our system.
Mem, I don't know if or what you've heard from other site owners, and we don't share information with other sites about players.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding this has caused between you guys. You're both great guests on our site and we like having both of you there. I hope this clears the air.
Josh and mem, one of you 2 will have to put up or shut up. I'm not letting this go.
My what an entitled and unpleasant person you are, 1 page ago you attack me without provocation now you are making demands.
So I'm the entitled and unpleasent when it was you who accused ME of referral fraud.
I don't know if you're lying or telling the truth about Josh saying it, but one of you will get out of this looking bad.
Josh and mem, one of you 2 will have to put up or shut up. I'm not letting this go.
My what an entitled and unpleasant person you are, 1 page ago you attack me without provocation now you are making demands.
Civility people (ssaCEO, PSY and potential Dooglus sock puppets), it goes a long way.
My automatic attitude to any demand is to say no, because I am a bit of a prick - so .... NO
edit: Id say no anyway, this is for ssaCEO to address. I put my 2c in to vouch for the site and the operator and to call for calmer heads.
OK Im getting distracted from work here so this is a quick update then Im back into it.
Dooglus I went back through my emails etc and did not find you mentioned, I fear I have mistaken accusations against you for accusations against PSY (small world isnt it).
PSY has been under suspicion of referral fraud and questions raised with myself (and others) regarding the activities.
The information provided is quite convincing (Id believe it) and I find it unlikely the site admin went to manufacture this scenario around PSY - there is not a simple explanation for that motive. The simpler explanation is that PSY did indeed abuse the referral system and wishes to hide it.
I am not disclosing who or what site (you can guess Im sure) or the contents of the emails / PM's.
There is a reason people chose to discuss these things in private when there is only suspicion.
To make my position clear again:
I like SS's site.
My previous dealings with ssaCEO has been without issue (but I am not a normal client).
The handling of this dooglus issue was bad to say the least.
Abusing a referral system is a dick move, so is abusing any promotion imho.
I still stand by the SS site and I hope ssaCEO will come back refreshed and clean up this mess and confusion.
A polite refusal or even a simple ban would of sufficed I feel rather than the threads we have all seen by now.
Dooglus I went back through my emails etc and did not find you mentioned, I fear I have mistaken accusations against you for accusations against PSY (small world isnt it).
PSY has been under suspicion of referral fraud and questions raised with myself (and others) regarding the activities.
The information provided is quite convincing (Id believe it) and I find it unlikely the site admin went to manufacture this scenario around PSY - there is not a simple explanation for that motive. The simpler explanation is that PSY did indeed abuse the referral system and wishes to hide it.
I am not disclosing who or what site (you can guess Im sure) or the contents of the emails / PM's.
There is a reason people chose to discuss these things in private when there is only suspicion.
To make my position clear again:
I like SS's site.
My previous dealings with ssaCEO has been without issue (but I am not a normal client).
The handling of this dooglus issue was bad to say the least.
Abusing a referral system is a dick move, so is abusing any promotion imho.
I still stand by the SS site and I hope ssaCEO will come back refreshed and clean up this mess and confusion.
A polite refusal or even a simple ban would of sufficed I feel rather than the threads we have all seen by now.
Quoting for future memory
I'm still waiting for the evidence... inb4 thread locked because it's yet another PR disaster for SS.
I'm fucking sorry I ever sent any of my friends there as Josh clearly isn't worth the trouble.
Oh, and before anyone asks, not one of my friends used my referral link because it wasn't even active at the translated version of the site.
I do affiliate marketing for a living, and never was I banned from any program or accused of fraud, because my leads are real, and I have thousands and thousands of dollars received from several companies to prove it.
Real companies, the kind that pay me for my leads every week/2 weeks/month, not the kind that deposits any money I make on their site so I can just gamble and lose it, like SS does, with their WR.
Josh and mem, one of you 2 will have to put up or shut up. I'm not letting this go.
I'm fucking sorry I ever sent any of my friends there as Josh clearly isn't worth the trouble.
Oh, and before anyone asks, not one of my friends used my referral link because it wasn't even active at the translated version of the site.
I do affiliate marketing for a living, and never was I banned from any program or accused of fraud, because my leads are real, and I have thousands and thousands of dollars received from several companies to prove it.
Real companies, the kind that pay me for my leads every week/2 weeks/month, not the kind that deposits any money I make on their site so I can just gamble and lose it, like SS does, with their WR.
Josh and mem, one of you 2 will have to put up or shut up. I'm not letting this go.
Jump to: