Hej alle sammen.
Vi modtog en rapport fra spilplatformen om, at denne klient brugte en korttællingsstrategi for at opnå en fordel i Evolutions BlackJack-spil. Denne strategi er en velkendt metode, der bruges af svigagtige grupper til at tjene penge, hvilket fik os til at indlede en videoverifikation af klienten for at bekræfte identiteten på den faktiske spiller.
Under identitetsbekræftelsen var klienten i stand til ubesværet at besvare spørgsmål om hans personlige oplysninger, hans indbetalingsmetode og beløbet. Men da han blev spurgt om reglerne for blackjack, svarede klienten med "husker ikke", med henvisning til en sprogbarriere. Dette anses for at være en gyldig grund, da det kan være en udfordring at forklare spilleregler på et ikke-modersmål. Derfor blev der stillet enklere spørgsmål på klientens modersmål (armensk, med billedkort), som krævede ligetil og utvetydige svar.
1. Spørgsmål: Hvad er værdien af "dronning"-kortet i blackjack?
Klienten svarede selvsikkert "3." Dette er forkert, da dronningen, ligesom knægt og konge, tæller som 10 point.
2. Spørgsmål: Hvad er værdien af "es"-kortet i blackjack? 1, 5 eller 10?
Klientens svar var "10." Det ser ud til, at klienten forsøgte at gætte det mest logisk rigtige svar. Dette er dog også forkert, da esset kan tælle som enten 1 eller 11, alt efter hvad der giver en mere gunstig kombination.
I betragtning af at disse spørgsmål er grundlæggende for alle, der har spillet blackjack, og i betragtning af at spilleplatformen specifikt rapporterede denne klient, indikerer det, at han burde være en erfaren spiller. Klienten bekræftede også, at han spillede blackjack alene uden hjælp. Det er således tydeligt, at en professionel spillede ved at bruge både en ordning og denne persons identitet. Af disse grunde blev klientens konto spærret, og hans saldo blev konfiskeret.
Vi diskuterede spørgsmålet om tilbagebetaling af den sidste indbetaling, da der var et klart forsøg på at bedrage kasinoet. Vi konkluderede, at returnering af det sandsynligvis ville føre til, at den professionelle registrerede en ny identitet og forsøger den samme ordning igen, denne gang forberedt på videobekræftelsesspørgsmålene. Derfor besluttede vi ikke at returnere depositum til kunden.
Vi håber, at denne forklaring hjælper.
Hey, all.
We received a report from the gaming platform that this client was employing a card-counting strategy to gain an advantage in Evolution's BlackJack games. This strategy is a well-known method used by fraudulent groups to profit, which led us to initiate a video verification of the client to confirm the identity of the actual player.
During the identity verification, the client was able to effortlessly answer questions about his personal information, his deposit method, and the amount. However, when asked about the rules of blackjack, the client responded with "don't remember," citing a language barrier. This is considered a valid reason, as explaining game rules in a non-native language can indeed pose a challenge. Therefore, simpler questions were asked in the client's native language (Armenian, with picture cards) that required straightforward and unequivocal answers.
1. Question: What is the value of the "queen" card in blackjack?
The client confidently answered "3." This is incorrect, as the queen, like the jack and king, counts as 10 points.
2. Question: What is the value of the "ace" card in blackjack? 1, 5, or 10?
The client's response was "10." It appears that the client was trying to guess the most logically correct answer. However, this is also incorrect, as the ace can count as either 1 or 11, depending on which results in a more favorable combination.
Given that these questions are basic for anyone who has played blackjack, and considering that the gaming platform specifically reported this client, it indicates that he should be an experienced player. The client also confirmed that he played blackjack alone without any assistance. Thus, it is evident that a professional was playing using both a scheme and the identity of this person. For these reasons, the client's account was blocked, and his balance was confiscated.
We discussed the issue of refunding the last deposit since there was a clear attempt to deceive the casino. We concluded that returning it would likely lead to the professional registering a new identity and attempting the same scheme again, this time prepared for the video verification questions. Therefore, we decided not to return the deposit to the client.
We hope this explanation helps.
Automatisk oversættelse:
