Flatzem888

how is that even possible, that never happens

ai said; This is a classic "shadow marketing" tactic that relies on the perceived rapport between a VIP manager and a high-value player. While it might look like a rogue employee poaching a client list, it is almost certainly a coordinated effort between the two brands. Here is a breakdown of why they use this "LARPing" approach and what the benefits are for the casinos: 1. Bypassing "Marketing Fatigue" Standard promotional emails often go straight to the spam folder or get ignored. By framing the email as a personal outreach from a specific person ("GuyYouDon'tKnow"), the casino triggers a sense of exclusivity and personal connection. It feels like a "leak" or a "secret deal" rather than a corporate blast. 2. Circumventing Database Restrictions If "Casino A" and "Casino B" are owned by the same parent company but operate under different licenses or terms, they might not have legal permission to simply port your data over. By having a "manager" claim they "took down your details," they create a flimsy but functional narrative to explain how a new site suddenly has your contact info. 3. The "Grass is Greener" Psychology Players who have been losing at one site often feel "unlucky" there. By presenting a new site as a fresh start—endorsed by a familiar face—the company keeps you within their ecosystem (their network of sites) rather than losing you to a genuine competitor. 4. High-Touch Conversion VIP Managers are trained to convert players through direct interaction. This email sets the stage for a one-on-one relationship, which makes it harder for a player to walk away later. If you feel you have a "friend" on the inside, you're more likely to deposit. The Verdict: It's highly likely that both casinos are white-label brands on the same platform. The "departure" of the manager is a scripted story used to facilitate a warm lead transfer.

@cocopop3011 this is all about this thing called (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag). That new member is essentially trying to "check-raise" a multi-billion dollar corporation. Here is the breakdown of the situation from a "poker and logic" perspective: 1. The Legal "Bluff" vs. The Reality The user’s argument relies on the fact that Germany has some of the strictest gambling laws in the world. The "Invalid Bet" Argument: Under German law, if a casino doesn't have a specific German license (from the GGL), the contract between the player and the casino is technically "void." The Target: Usually, players sue the casinos to get their losses back. This user is taking it a step further by targeting the Provider (Pragmatic Play). He is arguing that by providing the "cards and chips" (the slots) to an "illegal table" (the unlicensed casino), Pragmatic is an accomplice. The "Dude" Incident (The Tilt) In poker, when a player starts arguing about etiquette or small insults, they are "on tilt." * The new member is so emotionally invested in his legal "crusade" that a casual word like "dude" felt like a direct attack on his dignity. The Admin's Play: Admins on sites like AskGamblers are like casino floor managers. They don't care about your legal theories; they only care if you are making the "table" (the forum) unpleasant for other guests. By snapping back at the other member, the user effectively "busted out" of the conversation by getting a warning. Pragmatic Play’s "Poker Face" Why is Pragmatic Play ignoring his 10+ emails? Legal Shielding: Large providers have thousands of "skins" (casinos) using their software. Their legal defense is usually that they are a B2B (Business to Business) provider. They argue it is the casino's job to block German IPs, not the software provider's job to police the entire internet. The VPN Problem: As the user mentioned, sites like Betbolt or Vave are often accessed via VPN. Pragmatic can argue they "sold the software to a licensed region," and if a player uses a VPN to "sneak in," the provider isn't responsible for the player's "disguise". The "Claim for Damages" (The Big Pot) German courts have actually been siding with players lately, forcing some casinos to pay back hundreds of thousands of Euros in losses. However: Suing the Provider is much harder. Most of these providers are based in Malta or Gibraltar. The Public Interest: The user mentions "public interest" and "other players joining." He is trying to build a Class Action suit. In the legal world, this is like trying to go "All-In" with a drawing hand—it looks scary, but if the "judge" (the dealer) doesn't give you the right cards, you lose everything.

did you stop playing there/ depositing there after that ?

about Anjo Anjouan (part of the Union of the Comoros) is known in the gambling world as a "Low-Friction" regulator. While they have the legal authority to fine, suspend, or revoke licenses, the reality of how they operate is very different from stricter bodies like the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) or the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). The Anjouan "Philosophy" Anjouan’s Gaming Board is essentially a Business-First regulator. They provide a "Flag of Convenience" for many crypto-casinos and smaller operators because: Lower Costs: Their licensing fees are significantly cheaper. Faster Approval: They don't subject operators to the months-long "Deep Dive" audits that other jurisdictions do. Hands-Off Approach: They generally stay out of the way unless there is a massive, public scandal. Do Fines Actually Happen? To answer your question directly: Publicly recorded fines from Anjouan are extremely rare. Unlike the UKGC, which publishes a "Wall of Shame" with multi-million dollar fines for failing "Know Your Customer" (KYC) checks, Anjouan tends to handle disputes "Behind the Scenes." Player Disputes: If a player (like our 202-entry Whale) has a complaint about a non-payment, Anjouan might mediate, but they rarely issue a public fine as punishment. The "Ultimate" Fine: Instead of a monetary fine, if an operator does something truly "Table-Destroying" (like outright stealing or getting caught in major money laundering), Anjouan is more likely to simply Revoke the License than to issue a fine they might never collect. For a player, seeing an Anjouan license is a signal to exercise Extreme Caution. The "Wild West" Energy: It’s like playing at a table where the dealer isn't wearing a uniform and there are no security cameras. Lack of Recourse: If an Anjouan-licensed casino decides to "Glitch" your account or deny your 5000 EUR win, you have very little chance of the regulator forcing them to pay. Feature UKGC (Strict) Anjouan (Lax) Public Fines Very Common Extremely Rare License Cost Very High Low Player Protection High Low / Minimal Audit Frequency Annual / Constant Occasional / Rare

come on dude, leave Pragmatic Play alone, they are good for the gambling industry and community, they sponsor lots and lots of contests and make good slots and table games.. no other provider comes close.

AI did some research and said; This post by bp54 is a major "breakthrough" in the 165-reply thread, as it shifts the focus from a technical dispute (ghost bets) to a corporate identity investigation. By linking that specific article from Revista Casino Perú, bp54 is attempting to unmask the people behind the curtain. Here is the significance of "Alan" and the connection he’s making: 1. The Face of the Operation: "Alan Del Oro" The article features an interview with Alan Del Oro, identified as the Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Del Oro Casino. The "Alan" Connection: bp54 is claiming that the "Alan" he dealt with during his €52,000 nightmare is the same high-level executive mentioned in the press. This is crucial because it moves the blame from a "random support agent" directly to the top leadership of the company. The Business Model: In the interview, Alan talks about "innovative experiences" like a system where users can become "agents" by sending bets to friends. This confirms that Del Oro is operating on a more "social/affiliate" model, which often has less oversight than traditional corporate casinos. 2. The "New Company" (Wazbee?) bp54 mentions they are "opening a new company" that also has an "Alan" on the team. Research into 2025/2026 launches shows a strong connection between the Del Oro leadership and a new brand called Wazbee (wazbee.lat). The Pattern: Many offshore operators who run into "payment issues" or "forum scandals" will quietly launch a new brand under a different license (like moving from Curaçao to Anjouan) to start fresh with a clean reputation. The "Alan Brincat" Lead: Public reviews and industry logs from late 2025 show a name associated with these brands: Alan Brincat. If this is the same "Alan," he is a known figure in the iGaming affiliate space, further proving bp54's point that this isn't just a casino—it's a network of connected individuals. 3. The "Coincidence" Argument bp54 is using a classic "Follow the Money" strategy. He’s telling the AskGamblers community: "If the person who told me my 52k was gone is the same person launching new casinos in Peru and Chile, then this isn't a 'technical error'—it's a business practice." 4. Why this matters for the 165-reply thread: This post is dangerous for Del Oro because it makes the dispute personal. For the Admins: When a user provides a link to a CEO’s interview, it makes it much harder for the casino to claim "it was an automated system error." For the Regulator: If Anjouan (ALSI) sees that their licensees are being publicly outed in trade magazines while refusing to pay players, it puts pressure on them to at least look like they are investigating.

Probability of Winning a Top 10 Prize (100 EUR to 500 EUR) Member (Entries) Chance of Winning a Prize 202 entries 99.99% 93 entries 99.79% 57 entries 98.85% 54 entries 98.64% 33 entries 95.02% 32 entries 94.66% 26 entries 91.68% 26 entries 91.68% 26 entries 91.68% 24 entries 90.27% 5 entries 33.43% 2 entries 14.30% run a simulation of 500,000 raffle draws and tell me how many times does the whale with 202 entries not win a top 10 prize AI: I ran 500,000 raffle draws using the exact weights of the 12 members. In each draw, 10 unique winners were selected one by one, with the probability of selection proportional to their remaining entries. Simulation Results Out of the 500,000 simulations: The whale (with 202 entries) did not win a top 10 prize only 22 times. The whale won a prize 499,978 times. Statistical Breakdown Probability of Failure (Simulation): $0.0044\%$ Probability of Winning (Simulation): $99.9956\%$ This result aligns perfectly with the mathematical theory. Because there are only 12 members in the contest and 10 total prizes, the only way for the whale to lose is to be one of the two "unlucky" people left over after the 10th draw. Given that the whale holds over 34% of the total "weight" in the pool, the chances of the software skipping them 10 times in a row are incredibly slim—approximately 1 in 22,700. In your 500,000-draw test, it happened less than 30 times. For all practical purposes, with 202 entries, the whale is essentially guaranteed a prize (ranging from 100 EUR to 500 EUR), though the specific rank (1st, 2nd, etc.) still carries significant variance. ... run 500,000 simulations and tell me how many times does either the 5 entry member get a top 10 prize or the 2 entry member get a top 10 prize and also tell me how many times do both of those members get a top 10 prize AI: I ran a fresh batch of 500,000 simulations to track the performance of the two members with the fewest entries (5 and 2). Here is how they fared in the race for the 10 available prizes: Scenario Number of Times (out of 500k) Percentage Either Member 5 or Member 2 wins 224,333 44.87% Both Member 5 and Member 2 win 14,192 2.84%

you currently have about 32% chance of getting 1st place.

nevermind

entry #057

entry #056

entry #055

entry #054