gammon empire doesn`t pay out
Paule
withdrawals without giving me a reason. I used to play on this server
for years without having any problems. Since january I am trying to
withdraw an amount of about 1.600 €. Each time they reject my
withdrawals saying my account would be under a standard security
check. Several times I asked for a reason but they gave me non. I didn
´t violate any rules like having more than one account etc. As far as
I can understand their strange behavior after three months, this
"standard security check" shall last forever. Meanwhile I think I can
advice anybody not to play on this server. They keep the winnings when
ever they want to.
topper
No smoke without fire!
What have you been up to?
Your game history must show some suspicious games.
Do you use a bot or abuse the game software?
martin...@hotmail.com
I can confirm that PLAY65 are crooks, I also had this kind of problem.
I was willing to play big money on this site, but before
I tested it to see if i could get my money back ...
So i put $60, just for testing on march 2009.
One week later, I have managed to won $200.
I requested a withdrawal and it has been approved.
But after that, things are going bad, the money has
somejhow vanished somewhere between
Israel and my bank account.
The truth is that they never send it.
Despite the many mails i have written, i never could get my money.
They say that the money has been send, but it's a lie, it never
arrived
on my bank account.
They are always inventing new false excuses to apologize for the
delay.
Play65 is nothing but a bunch of jewish crooks.
Be careful if you put money on this site, you will never get it back,
even if you manage to win.
Besides, it's very hard to win. I have often seen my opponent
rolling doubles 66 , then double 55 ... or rolling a joker just at
the right moment.
I also have an account on bwin.com ... never had any problems
with them. bwin is also very quick (3 days) to pay you when you win.
c...@bgshop.com
> I can confirm that PLAY65 are crooks, I also had this kind of problem.
>
Perhaps you should try playing at sites that are regulated in the UK
by the UK's Gambling Commission, where the requirements for a licence
to operate are more stringent than in some “banana republic”.
Here is one that has been around since 2002 and these are some of the
things they offer:
Low rake 1% - 5%
100% sign-up bonus (up to £100)
Every Sunday a £2000 Guaranteed Backgammon Tournament
Loyalty Bonus - Weekly Cashbacks
Daily Pennyroll Backgammon Tournaments
Added Prize Money Backgammon Tournaments
Ratings of other players are not public (you can only see your own)
Download your games/matches
They do have bots, and these are clearly called "bots"
No Download Required
Backgammon Money Games from £0.10
Scheduled backgammon tournaments night and day
‘Big Pot’ Backgammon Tournament
Backgammon Qualifiers
Free, money and match play
As many as 3 Backgammon Tournaments every hour
Visit http://www.bgshop.com and click on the banner on the left of the
screen.
I play there, my screen name is bgshopdotcom – my real name is Chris
Ternel.
martin...@hotmail.com
> On May 1, 5:58 pm, martin_k0e...@hotmail.com wrote:> I can confirm that PLAY65 are crooks, I also had this kind of problem.
>
> As I have written elsewhere in rec.games.backgammon...
>
> Perhaps you should try playing at sites that are regulated in the UK
> by the UK's Gambling Commission, where the requirements for a licence
> to operate are more stringent than in some “banana republic”.
>
> Here is one that has been around since 2002 and these are some of the
> things they offer:
>
> Low rake 1% - 5%
> 100% sign-up bonus (up to £100)
> Every Sunday a £2000 Guaranteed Backgammon Tournament
> Loyalty Bonus - Weekly Cashbacks
> Daily Pennyroll Backgammon Tournaments
> Added Prize Money Backgammon Tournaments
> Ratings of other players are not public (you can only see your own)
> Download your games/matches
> They do have bots, and these are clearly called "bots"
> No Download Required
> Backgammon Money Games from £0.10
> Scheduled backgammon tournaments night and day
> ‘Big Pot’ Backgammon Tournament
> Backgammon Qualifiers
> Free, money and match play
> As many as 3 Backgammon Tournaments every hour
>
> screen.
>
> I play there, my screen name is bgshopdotcom – my real name is Chris
> Ternel.
Tested casinorip backgammon
english crooks with cheated dices
They claim that they give up to 150 euros welcome bonus,
BUT ... BUT ... BUT ...
you can only convert 1% of these 150 euros at every bet you make.
That means you have to bet for a total amount
of 15 000 euros to convert all the welcome bonus in cash.
The dice rolling are also very very strange.
A lot of high double at the bear off, a lot of jokers
just at the right moment.
The more the stakes are high, the more dices are getting crazy.
I have lost many games gammon because of incredible situations.
For exemple, i accepted a cube, and after that, my opponent
rools many doubles or puts one of me men on the bar
and i couldn't get out foverer ...
Rolled double 6 twice while on the bar ...
(probability is 1 on 1296)
Other exemple : I manage to put many of his men on the bar
and then he rools a salvatory double to get out ...
it happens many times
Once, my opponant rolled double 4 then double 6 at the beginning
of the game ... how can i win with such dices against me.
Dices are as crazy as in play65 = cheated games also
ghaddafi
> > screen.
>
> > I play there, my screen name is bgshopdotcom – my real name is Chris
> > Ternel.
>
> Tested casinorip backgammon
>
> english crooks with cheated dices
>
> They claim that they give up to 150 euros welcome bonus,
> BUT ... BUT ... BUT ...
> you can only convert 1% of these 150 euros at every bet you make.
> That means you have to bet for a total amount
> of 15 000 euros to convert all the welcome bonus in cash.
>
> The dice rolling are also very very strange.
>
> A lot of high double at the bear off, a lot of jokers
> just at the right moment.
> The more the stakes are high, the more dices are getting crazy.
> I have lost many games gammon because of incredible situations.
>
> For exemple, i accepted a cube, and after that, my opponent
> rools many doubles or puts one of me men on the bar
> and i couldn't get out foverer ...
>
the time anywhere,so if you cant stand this better stop playing.
However the payoutproblem with skillempire is REAL and was discussed a
lot of times here before.
However noone is interested in this except hes punished himself,so
most of us has to learn by the hard way.....
> Rolled double 6 twice while on the bar ...
> (probability is 1 on 1296)
>
> Other exemple : I manage to put many of his men on the bar
> and then he rools a salvatory double to get out ...
> it happens many times
>
> Once, my opponant rolled double 4 then double 6 at the beginning
> of the game ... how can i win with such dices against me.
>
> Dices are as crazy as in play65 = cheated games also- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
martin...@hotmail.com
the real world (or even on gammonempire) !
This kind of sequence can happen once but not
4 or 5 times per day !!!
Peter Schneider
<martin...@hotmail.com> wrote
> This kind of sequence [boxes on the bar]
> can happen once but not
> 4 or 5 times per day !!!
No?
Peter aka the juggler
Peter Schneider
"Peter Schneider" wrote
> <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> This kind of sequence [boxes on the bar]
I paraphrased Martin incorrectly and should have
said (emphasis by me)
>> This kind of sequence [boxes on the bar *twice*]
and then
>> can happen once but not
>> 4 or 5 times per day !!!
>
> No?
>
I still ask "No?". It's not likely but it surely can happen.
Peter aka the juggler
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Peter Schneider <schneiderp...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> This kind of sequence [boxes on the bar *twice*]
>
>and then
>
>>> can happen once but not
>>> 4 or 5 times per day !!!
>>
>> No?
>
>I still ask "No?". It's not likely but it surely can happen.
This is why I still think that my suggestion of cryptographic protocols to
prove that electronic dice are not cheating has some merit.
Let me ask you this, Peter---if you were to play an electronic game of
backgammon, and one side were to roll, say, double-4's *every single time*
for the whole game, would you still say, "Well, these things happen
sometimes"? If so, I would question your sanity.
The charge is sometimes made that those who suspect cheating will always
suspect cheating regardless of the evidence. There might be some merit
to the charge, but I think there is also some merit to the charge that
those who *don't* suspect cheating will never suspect cheating regardless
of the evidence.
Virtually all such debates could be settled if cryptographic protocols
were introduced.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
Michael Petch
On 21/05/09 12:35 PM, in article
4a159f02$0$515$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu, "tc...@lsa.umich.edu"
<tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
> Virtually all such debates could be settled if cryptographic protocols
> were introduced.
I have to disagree. I assume you are referring to the tests of randomness
generally employed to determine whether a given random source is actually
random. Such tests include the Diehard tests etc.
I have used this argument in the past, and I'll tell you, even if you have a
random number generator that passes an entire battery of tests there will
still be people who will not believe.
Except for the fact that Mersenne Twister can generate reproducible sets of
numbers (one negative thing as seen from the side of cryptography) it passes
the majority of the diehard tests. However given all that people who use
Mersenne twister believe they can see patterns in a small sample set and
believe GnuBG's dice are rigged.
Running a litany of tests will not be evidence for those who are firmly
entrenched in their view. They'll just question the validity of the tests,
and provide no evidence as to why those tests are invalid or propose better
ones.
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Michael Petch <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote:
>4a159f02$0$515$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu, "tc...@lsa.umich.edu"
><tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> Virtually all such debates could be settled if cryptographic protocols
>> were introduced.
>
>I have to disagree. I assume you are referring to the tests of randomness
>generally employed to determine whether a given random source is actually
>random. Such tests include the Diehard tests etc.
No. I said "cryptographic protocols," and that's what I meant. See for
example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_poker
>I have used this argument in the past, and I'll tell you, even if you have a
>random number generator that passes an entire battery of tests there will
>still be people who will not believe.
This will be true even with cryptographic protocols. The criterion can never
be getting everyone to believe, because such a criterion can never be met.
But cryptographic protocols would dramatically reduce the possibilities for
cheating. Currently, with no protocols in place, even a reasonable person
can suspect that rigging of dice occasionally takes place.
Michael Petch
On 21/05/09 1:57 PM, in article C63B0E3F.80359%mpe...@capp-sysware.com,
"Michael Petch" <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote:
>
> Running a litany of tests will not be evidence for those who are firmly
> entrenched in their view. They'll just question the validity of the tests,
> and provide no evidence as to why those tests are invalid or propose better
> ones.
>
There are other important aspects of using random numbers that can influence
whether the end result may be biased. The manner in which you use random
numbers also is a part of the equation. You can have a perfectly random data
source and then botch a shuffling algorithm and produce far less random
results etc. In Backgammon those who use a "simple modulo 6" on their
servers to convert random data to a number between 1 and 6 will introduce a
small bias.
Michael Petch
On 21/05/09 2:06 PM, in article
4a15b457$0$510$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu, "tc...@lsa.umich.edu"
<tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote:
> No. I said "cryptographic protocols," and that's what I meant. See for
> example
Thank you for the clarification.
bob
How does that bias occur? I also need to know I suppose what the
initial random data actually is.
Is it just a stream of 0's and 1's?
Peter Schneider
<tc...@lsa.umich.edu> wrote
> In article <77kvm9F...@mid.individual.net>,
> Peter Schneider <schneiderp...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>> This kind of sequence [boxes on the bar *twice*]
>>
>>and then
>>
>>>> can happen once but not
>>>> 4 or 5 times per day !!!
>>>
>>> No?
>>
>>I still ask "No?". It's not likely but it surely can happen.
>
> This is why I still think that my suggestion of cryptographic protocols
> to
> prove that electronic dice are not cheating has some merit.
>
> Let me ask you this, Peter---if you were to play an electronic game of
> backgammon, and one side were to roll, say, double-4's *every single
> time*
> for the whole game, would you still say, "Well, these things happen
> sometimes"? If so, I would question your sanity.
Well, I questioned the statement "*cannot* happen" with respect to en event
that indeed *can* happen.
"Cannot happen" is a trivially wrong statement; my questioning it was
equally trivial. I tried to provoke a better argument with respect to
likelihood etc. Since 44s all the time can also happen, I'd stay with my
question, sane or not ;-). An anthropicoid argument could be that it is
extremely unlikely to be in a universe where such an event
occured/occurs/will occur, but since we just observed one we obviously
inhabit one of those few ...
> The charge is sometimes made that those who suspect cheating will always
> suspect cheating regardless of the evidence. There might be some merit
> to the charge, but I think there is also some merit to the charge that
> those who *don't* suspect cheating will never suspect cheating regardless
> of the evidence.
Yes, I think that's a valid point. Reminds me of an ongoing debate about
atheism vs. faithfulness (cf.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/feb/20/campos-the-atheists-dilemma/). A
columnist makes the point that atheists wouldn't acknowledge an angel even
if they saw one -- they'd claim it is an illusion, hynosis, Fata Morgana,
whatever, but no angel. There is some truth to that.
> Virtually all such debates could be settled if cryptographic protocols
> were introduced.
I'd say that on the contrary very few of the debates would profit from more
evidence; I side with Michael on this one. But true, in the few cases where
knowledgeable persons would wonder on sound grounds about potential
cheating in the absence of such a protocol it might help. Is it worth the
effort? When playing for money, probably; when not, shuffling twice can't
hurt, can it ;-).--
Ok, I'm off on vacation.
Best,
Peter aka the juggler
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Peter Schneider <schneiderp...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Virtually all such debates could be settled if cryptographic protocols
>> were introduced.
>
>I'd say that on the contrary very few of the debates would profit from more
>evidence; I side with Michael on this one.
It's not so much a question of "more evidence." It's a question of
setting up the game in such a way that the only way to rig the dice would
be to develop a method of breaking extremely strong cryptographic systems.
(This wouldn't rule out cheating of other forms---using shills, etc.---but
it would effectively rule out rigging the dice.)
mpe...@gmail.com
On 21/05/09 2:51 PM, in article 313a37e2-d3c9-4488-
a6ef-4a2...@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com, "bob"
<bob_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> How does that bias occur? I also need to know I suppose what the
> initial random data actually is.
> Is it just a stream of 0's and 1's?
The bias I am referring to is the potential one that is introduced if
someone used simple "Mod 6" to convert part of the binary stream into
a roll between 1 and 6.
Generally speaking most systems programmers take a byte (2 bytes or 4
bytes usually) of data from the stream since computers handle 8 bits
at a time very well.
So often I will see this:
Variable RANDNUM = Get 8 bits of random data from random source
(provides values between 0 and 255)
Variable DIE = (RANDNUM modulo 6) + 1
This will take the 8 bits of Data and convert it into a value between
0 and 5. Programmers will add 1 to yield a number between 1 and 6.
The problem is that 6 doesn't divide into 2^8 (in this case) evenly.
The numbers 1,2,3 and 4 have a slight bias over 5 and 6.
There are simple methods of avoiding this situation, but you will find
a lot of professional programmers who don't know any better, because
they just want a reasonable random number.
So you start out with a random source and then inadvertently add a
bias that makes some number appear more than other. My only point
was, how you deal with a random number stream also impacts the
randomness o the rolls that are produced from it.
Back a number of years ago Gnubg didn't eliminate the bias (it does
now).