Profile : jamie_evans

The links aren’t the same.  What you’re probably seeing is the container URI without any query parameters.  The game is normally presented in an IFrame, so if your were to look at the src attribute of the IFrame tag you’d see different URLs.  In every single case where I’ve seen (and I supect every case full stop), especially in the case of Play’n GO, the demo mode is differentiated by using a different URL / route to the content pages.

On the question of what I think of Roshtein, I find him extremely annoying and unpalatable.

Whether he is fake or not?  Put it this way: On the surface, no gambler is going to continuously sustain 6 or 7 figure losses annually without (1) becoming destitute quite quickly, (2) having so much money that revenue from affiliation is irrelevant, or (3) making more in affiliation revenue than losses from play.

We can safely rule out options 1 and 2, because he isn’t destitute and he is and always has promoted the use of his affiliation links.  That leaves us with him making more in affiliation than he loses in play.  And though this sounds like an option which grants legitimacy to his operation, and we know what affiliate bonuses can do to overall RTP, I still think he’s almost completely fake, and here’s why.

A few months ago clips started surfacing on YouTube of Roshtein opening a slot in demo mode, which coincidentally loaded up with the same balance as in his “real” account.  Now that by itself is not conclusive evidence that he’s not playing with real funds, but it does get you thinking.

The game in question was Rise of Merlin, designed by Play’n GO.  Rise of Merlin is a hosted game (just like most modern games), meaning that Play’n GO do not distribute the binaries of the game itself to casinos, rather they host it on their own network and the casinos plug in to it via APIs.  So in this model, opening a game primes a new session in which the provider makes an API call to the casino, who return to them your account balance.  Initiating a spin then triggers the the provider’s system to generate a result, and make an API call back to the casino to (1) notify them of what that result is, and (2) retrieve – by response – the updated balance.

For Roshtein to have opened a game in demo mode, and the balance to be the same as his so-called real balance, the casino would have had to prime a new session using the amount of his real balance.  If this were the case then, without logic to determine whether the real balance were sufficient to be used for demo mode, a player with a zero balance would simply not be able to demo the slots.  This is counterproductive to the ambition of the casino, which is to get you to play for real.  Why would a developer even go through the extra effort of retrieving the real balance, and performing logic on it, knowing that in most cases where demo mode is used the player doesn’t have sufficient real funds, when a standard amount can be used for all cases.  It doesn’t make sense.  That leads me to the conclusion that, at least in the stream where he is supposedly exposed, the real account balance and demo account balance is one in the same.  And there can be two possible reasons for this.

Let’s suppose that the casino he is using maintains a balance for a player’s demo account.  This would mean that Roshtein would be able to move from game to game and the balance would naturally be maintained.  But we do see Roshtein clicking the button for real play, not demo, so how can this be possible?  Simple.  There are plenty of ways to fake this:  URL rewriting could be used to overwrite a casino API query parameter to change all real requests to demo; A couple of lines entered in the browser console could change all real links in to demo ones; The browser could have a script extension installed which manipulates the links, etc.

The possibility that sits best with me is that Roshtein is actually playing on a pre-production version of the casino system.  Anyone who works in development or operations of systems like these knows that before updates to systems are released they’re tested against a live-like environment, where all of the dependencies and relationships to other parts can be tested before “go-live”.  Having been an architect of many such environment I know that the ambition when designing pre-prod, integration or sandbox environments is to provide as much functionality as possible with the constraint of not being able to interact with production systems or data.  It’s not just casinos who have pre-production environments, it’s payment providers too.  And, as such, a test environment for the casino will be configured to use a test payment system.  Although it is possible to completely fake a cash out or deposit, the technical complexity becomes an order of magnitude greater.  I think this best explains how Roshtein can be seen, live, making deposits and withdrawals.  He is using test or arbitrary card details.  But how can we see the URL is the same as we would be visiting when playing for real money?  How does Roshtein get a pre-production system when others get a production one?  This is probably the simplest little hack in all I will write about.  A pre-production server will have a different public IP address to a production one, and most likely a different DNS host name.  It is really quite trivial to change the IP address which your computer uses for a host name.  There is a file which you can add entries to override normal name resolution behavior for given hosts, referred to as the local machine hosts file, or LMHOSTS.

So what do I think of him? He’s an annoying little phony.

Gambling’s the next smoking.  You used to get 20 Superkings for two quid in a snazzy black and gold pack, now you gotta look at some dead baby or with fags for eyes, or some fuck hole in the throat.

Pretty soon you’re gonna have to watch a video of yourself before depositing, sifting through black bags for last weeks dinner you burnt ‘cos you were gambling, and debt collectors hooking up a noose for you to kiss your own sorry ass goodbye.

Ahh she walked in on me on the old over weight wonkey donkey.  I tried to tell her it was just a nativity play but that just made matters worse (I had my cock out).

You bitches get back to swinging handbags right now! I was getting in to this thread.

@BJM86

To return to my original point, if you don’t like it the solution is really simple…

That isn’t a sensible business stance for Bandit though.  With less viewers comes less revenue.  With less revenue comes less charitable donations.  I condemn any personal attacks against Steve for making this decision, and from what I read, some really vile people have popped their head out of their ass to be flatulent for a moment in the most horrible way.  At the same time, @kojak and many others should not be alienated or lambasted for protesting.  As long as they’re not being abusive then let them be heard.

I was disappointed with the cancellation but for different reasons to most.  Personally I don’t like to see division or favor among The Bandit’s following.  You can’t please everyone but you don’t need to subjugate people’s principals either.

@argyl53 I don’t disagree with your earlier reply to me, and I was perhaps complacent in my suggestion mods were removing people for simply having a view.  On reflection, they do indeed seem to be resigned to not using the forum again, though sending them off with a public slap may be a little OTT – to some at least.

Email verification links and reCAPTCHA will thwart 99% of script kiddies, and £3,000 probably wouldn’t motivate the remaining 1%.  SMS verification codes would be a good one which, provided the privacy policy is right, would pay for itself thousandfold.

I do think though the argument in your later post that entry hasn’t cost anyone anything is a little simplistic.  Not me personally (I couldn’t give half a hoot because I’m immune to marketing) but some people do see their email address as having some intrinsic value, and in giving it, they have entered in to a transaction.  What they didn’t do, however, was read the terms and conditions of the draws which clearly state Bandit has the right to cancel a draw if foul play or fraud is “suspected”.  That sufficiently manages my expectations, in that I have none.  Anyone questioning the legality of cancelling the draw need only know that competitions like this in the UK must have a set of terms and conditions attached, and the terms in this case are completely standard for a giveaway of its sort.

So is cancellation wrong?  Without question, no.  Could it have been handled better?  Maybe a little but it could have been a lot worse.

Finally, are we human, or are we dancer?