Sky Vegas confiscates player wins due to game malfunction

[bigdeal]

This thread makes interesting reading.

I've heard so much negative opinion and info about Sky Vegas: software that throws up any result even the most ludicrous to ensure a player loses, players depositing countless times and never withdrawing any winnings, rude Customer Service staff, players banned from their Facebook page for no reason, sarcastic responses from whoever runs their Facebook.

And this has come from a variety of tolerant people. Sounds like a dreadful organisation from top to bottom. You would think they would look after their brand image more carefully but it appears all they care about is making money.

[iGamingWriter]

I've heard so much negative opinion and info about Sky Vegas: software that throws up any result even the most ludicrous to ensure a player loses, players depositing countless times and never withdrawing any winnings, rude Customer Service staff, players banned from their Facebook page for no reason, sarcastic responses from whoever runs their Facebook.

It's interesting that you say this in your first post here. Other than this thread and the attached Casino Meister thread i'm not aware of all that many player complaints re. Sky Vegas. They use WagerWorks and IGT software for the most part, a software brand i consider very reliable. Some of the reviewers that work with me have played extensively with them and never experienced any issues. Moreover at least one of my reviewers has been very positive about their customer services staff, who when their was an issue with a withdrawal paid them out immediately (i.e. within 2 min of finishing the instant chat).

I agree that their handling of this issue so far has been shocking. We're never going to hear a result for this case as it's now been months and Dean no longer even pretends to respond to issues here (he's not even logged into his account here since the 10th of Feb!!!) - which probably means that Sky have done something they don't want people to know about. It's appauling behaviour and will cost them dearly in positioning on my new site (if i ever get the thing up). It's not trustworthy behaviour and is an unacceptable way to treat the playing community.

But back to the point - putting aside this issue, i'm not aware of any rash of player complaints against Sky. Could you provide some examples?

[lowrisk]

This is very interesting, and I recently referred somebody here, for their opening offer, as a good way for him to "try" a new casino......and he remarked their roulette was "blatantly rigged"....

[iGamingWriter]

Not really - Sky Vegas use IGT software which is the same software as many other brands including Virgin Casino. The chances of them rigging their games are fairly remote - IGT have an outstanding reputation and as the games are already weighted in their favour they're always going to make money. Rigging a game to earn a little extra on the side at the expense of risking their reputation and hence the contracts of many high level clients simply makes no sense.

More likely your referal had a bad run - just about every gambler i know thinks they got cheated every time they've had a bad run. I know very few players i truely think were cheated. Bigdeal signed up and made one post, in a thread detailing problems with a particular outfit but not related to those problems and when asked to substantiate his claims never managed to stay the course to a second post. Perhaps the first post shouldn't be given too much credit....

[lowrisk]

His point regarding the rude customer service staff is easily substantiated, search on google for reviews or feedback on some of the Sky gaming brands, particularly bingo, and you'll see that their CS is shocking.....

[iGamingWriter]

But that was by far the less serious and less dangerous of the two charges. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if their CS was poor; although the players i know haven't had poor experiences, the CS in the other areas of the company had been pretty weak in my experience. However, one's poor service the other's illegal (depending on the jurisdiction) and would implicate a large number of fairly big name casinos.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but i am saying that it's highly unlikely that IGT would risk their reputation by giving their casino partners the option to configure table games in a non-random way.

[lowrisk]

Well, in that case, would you not agree that IGT aren't completely all sweetness and light by providing a game that clearly isn't ready for use, as it's riddled with bugs and errors, and thus this whole scenario occurred

[iGamingWriter]

There is no guarentee that the slots game in question - i'm going to assume that it's actually the slots game your talking about above rather than the roulette games that you brought up - is actually an IGT game. Sky Vegas use IGT for their table games and hence i find it extreemly unlikely that they could cheat someone on their roulette games. They buy their slots games in from several different proviers - so the game in question is not necessarily an IGT game. In this particular situation, i'd agree with you if you'd said Sky Vegas are anything but clean. They've bought in a game and failed to test it properly before they offered it to their customers. Then it turns out that the game has a player advantage (probably a substantial one) rather than a house advantage and they start acting like thugs, threatening anyone who won with legal action if they don't return their winnings. If it had been an IGT game however, there would have been more than just Sky Vegas affected as IGT's new slots games tend to go live at a lot of different casinos at once.

[Caruso]

We hear these time-worn platitudes time and again.

"They don't need to cheat."

"They would never risk their reputation."

"It's unproven."

Etc.

Breaking news:

1) Yes, they do. In bottom-feeding casino perspective, every dollar more is a good thing.

2) They have no reputation, outside of their image of themselves. Nothing to lose.

3) It can never be proven, unless they cheat ALL the time. Anything else is (largely) impossible to prove. This is therefore a non-argument.

On the matter: I'd be surprised if this was a smash-and-grab from Sky Vegas. Why bitch about a few players getting lucky on slots? Even for a dumb casino, this would be dumb. So I suspect there was a malfunction (though don't ask me how the hell an online slot machine malfunctions). Also, the allegations about Facebook deletions are somewhat unsubstantiated.

That leaves their silence. I suppose if this was a genuine malfunction, they may be entitled to keep schtum. It looks bad from a CS perspective, though. They should to give reasonable details that do not go so far as to disclose anything private / compromising. If something tantamount to a hack happened, they may have reasons for keeping quiet. This could be the case, as Playtech was "hacked" (effectively, but not actually) not so long ago, and the player did very nicely until Betfair called time on him and had the game removed for fixing.

[iGamingWriter]

Caruso - i'd agree to an extent. I do have my suspicions regarding many of the smaller software providers, although other than one case which was proven mathematically they are unsubstantiated. If they were to get caught cheating firstly it wouldn't be that hard to shut it down and re-open again later under a different name and secondly their profit margins are small enough that offering the extra facility to rig games to their clients (or themselves when they run the casinos) could make a big enough difference to their bottom line to make it worth the risk.

That said, i'm very much a proponent of 'innocent until proven guilty', especially when every losing gambler - which is near enough all of them - claims they've been cheated whenever they've has a particularly bad run on the variance line.

However when it comes to the bigger brands - think Playtech, Microgaming, IGT, Net Entertainment - i really doubt that they'd offer fixed games for several reasons. If it got out that they were offering 'rigged' games, the big gambling firms would quickly start distancing themselves from the software provider involved and this is where the majority of their income comes from. These software providers have so many clients as it is, adding in the facility in to cheat for one casino simply doesn't make sense on a risk/reward level. If they add the facility in for all their clients it's even worse - a secret that widely known would soon become public. All it would take is one screen shot showing the backend system and a HE configuration option on one game that shouldn't have it, posted by one disgruntled employee and suddenly the jig is up.

The Playtech 'hack' was a really interesting case. It shows how vulnerable even the big providers are.

As to SV - i certainly agree with you regarding the lack of communication. I really doubt this was a hack, i think it's far more likely that the game wasn't tested properly and had a bug that basically dumped money to the player. Given that this game was pulled on the first day it was offered (i think??) it's unlikely to have been any sophisticated team attacking it. And SV should be stepping up to the plate and say 'our mistake, here's what happened' right now (or months ago) rather than destroying their credibility with this wall of silence.

[bigdeal]

It's interesting that you say this in your first post here. Other than this thread and the attached Casino Meister thread i'm not aware of all that many player complaints re. Sky Vegas. They use WagerWorks and IGT software for the most part, a software brand i consider very reliable. Some of the reviewers that work with me have played extensively with them and never experienced any issues. Moreover at least one of my reviewers has been very positive about their customer services staff, who when their was an issue with a withdrawal paid them out immediately (i.e. within 2 min of finishing the instant chat).

I agree that their handling of this issue so far has been shocking. We're never going to hear a result for this case as it's now been months and Dean no longer even pretends to respond to issues here (he's not even logged into his account here since the 10th of Feb!!!) - which probably means that Sky have done something they don't want people to know about. It's appauling behaviour and will cost them dearly in positioning on my new site (if i ever get the thing up). It's not trustworthy behaviour and is an unacceptable way to treat the playing community.

But back to the point - putting aside this issue, i'm not aware of any rash of player complaints against Sky. Could you provide some examples?

I'm not sure why it matters whether it's my first post or post 1000? Does my point hold more validity when my post count rises? Strange reasoning.

As someone else has pointed out, search on Google and you will see I am far from the only one who has experienced their dreadful CS.

Caruso's post makes a lot of sense. I've used Sky Vegas' software in the past and it certainly threw up some mindboggling, unbelievable, results. Over and over too. "Randomly generating" in their favour far, far more than in mine. Now if some choose to consider that as fair, that's fine.

Sky are regulated by the AGCC (who have a website littered with typos the last time I looked). Who regulates the AGCC?

[iGamingWriter]

It makes a difference because rather than seeming like you came here to raise point about a genuine issue, it seems like you came here to simply create negative publicity for a casino based on nothing. First post and you immediately claim that a group using one of the bigger and more reputable softwares on the market is using rigged games - a huge claim and one that needs substantiation - and then you disappear for well over a week. In general post count makes very little difference to the quality of the information that a poster provides, but surely you can see why unsubstantiated claims on your first post stinks of an ajenda?

'Mindboggling, unbelievable results' are called variance and don't mean anything unless you've recorded a statistically large enough sample size to be able to prove that the results are non-random. I hate to point this out, but if you spend any amount of time socialising with people who frequent b&m casinos, similar claims eventually come out and it doesn't mean anyone's been cheated. Gamblers are always quick to jump to 'cheating' as the conclusion for negative results, hence why we need proof. This is far from a behaviour pattern that solely occurs online.

I'd be the first to support you if you had any evidence to back up your claims and if you do please present it, but simply finding one thread about a casino you clearly don't like then insinuating that they're cheating doesn't give you any credibility what-so-ever.

[iGamingWriter]

Sky are regulated by the AGCC (who have a website littered with typos the last time I looked). Who regulates the AGCC?

Btw,the AGCC are one of the more respectable regulatory bodies. You do have a point about who regulates the regulators though - in large part internet gambling regulation is a joke.

[bigdeal]

It makes a difference because rather than seeming like you came here to raise point about a genuine issue, it seems like you came here to simply create negative publicity for a casino based on nothing. First post and you immediately claim that a group using one of the bigger and more reputable softwares on the market is using rigged games - a huge claim and one that needs substantiation - and then you disappear for well over a week. In general post count makes very little difference to the quality of the information that a poster provides, but surely you can see why unsubstantiated claims on your first post stinks of an ajenda?

'Mindboggling, unbelievable results' are called variance and don't mean anything unless you've recorded a statistically large enough sample size to be able to prove that the results are non-random. I hate to point this out, but if you spend any amount of time socialising with people who frequent b&m casinos, similar claims eventually come out and it doesn't mean anyone's been cheated. Gamblers are always quick to jump to 'cheating' as the conclusion for negative results, hence why we need proof. This is far from a behaviour pattern that solely occurs online.

I'd be the first to support you if you had any evidence to back up your claims and if you do please present it, but simply finding one thread about a casino you clearly don't like then insinuating that they're cheating doesn't give you any credibility what-so-ever.

And therein lies exactly how online gambling organisations can continue to claim their software is fair and rake in their profits. It's impossible to prove.

[Caruso]

I spoke to SkyVegas about this on Wednesday. It was a malfunction of some kind, and they were apparently instructed to keep quiet since the aggrieved parties are now taking action, hence the silence in this thread.

Ultimately it can only be the game supplier who'll be held accountable, rather than SkyVegas, as I see it. Whether or not "malfunctions void all wins" will be the trump card, I don't know.

SkyVegas acknowledges that it'd have been wise with hindsight to at least make a comment in this thread to the effect that, from this moment on, lips are sealed. One can understand the desire to comply with lawyers' requests to the letter, though.

[FictionNet]

Sod 'em. Sky are done as far as I'm concerned. Only time I'll mention Sky Vegas is in a player warning not to deposit there.

[CityGuard]

I spoke to SkyVegas about this on Wednesday. It was a malfunction of some kind, and they were apparently instructed to keep quiet since the aggrieved parties are now taking action, hence the silence in this thread.

Ultimately it can only be the game supplier who'll be held accountable, rather than SkyVegas, as I see it. Whether or not "malfunctions void all wins" will be the trump card, I don't know.

SkyVegas acknowledges that it'd have been wise with hindsight to at least make a comment in this thread to the effect that, from this moment on, lips are sealed. One can understand the desire to comply with lawyers' requests to the letter, though.

Thanks for sharing this Caruso.

I also spoke with Skybet during the iGaming Super Show and was informed of the same situation. I know there are people there who would like to share more publicly, but the management has asked them to withhold comment due to the pending legal action.

[4219rev]

Hello, sorry to bring up an old thread but im a bit concerned by this, mainly because i signed up to skyvegas a week or 2 ago.. i recieved a 10£ no-deposit bonus and turned it into 20£ , 10£ of which they let me withdraw (basically a free tenner). A few days later i deposited 6 pound and turned it into 9£ ( i know not much difference) which i then withdraw.. 3 days later when i recieved the money i deposited it back and turned it into 60£.. each time i reached the £30 marker i would withdraw £20 and make more from the last ten.. so from my experience *so far* i have only deposited 6£ into the casino and ive withdrew about 70£, i know the whole idea of gambling is for me to come back and waste more money but since ive already spent winnings i made from £6 i consider that run a solid win. Im concerned because all of you seem to be instructing me to stay away from skyvegas.. im sure i even saw a comment that said they dont let you withdraw winnings ( which i know they do).. i sometimes feel like ive been cheated when the dealer gets BJ 3 times in a row or something stupid but i also feel like im stealing from them when i withdraw more than i deposited.. I just dont quite understand why i should avoid these people? are you saying they are going to steal my money at some point? or was this is just related to their 1 miscalculation with that bad-game they brought out? - again, sorry to bring up an old thread. just concerned.

[DaftDog]

@4219rev - Sounds like a shrilling experience.

[FictionNet]

Sky tried to get de-rogued at Meister in the last week or so but refused to payout to all the players they've stolen from, so the remain in the meister bin. Sky have proven themselves to be dishonest and I will never, ever, ever, EVER promote them.