News Blog

March 26, 2016, 11:29 am

BetFred rigged games: proof they knew about the issue over four years ago

This is a further followup to my BetFred rigged games article. In January, BetFred issued the following statement:


4th January 2013, 03:07 PM

The investigation into the complaint raised here in regard to the Reel Deal game has started yielding results, and as promised before they will be disclosed in this thread. The below is confirmed by Finsoft – the supplier through which Betfred receive Realistic Games products.

Analysis has revealed that Reel Deal was indeed returning at 96%, despite being advertised at 100%. Finsoft’s review revealed that this was the result of an administrative error on the game’s deployment to Betfred, where the wrong help file was attached to the game.

While mistakes do happen, Betfred realise this is not acceptable. Neither Finsoft or Betfred would purposely mislead players, and will therefore actively compensate players on losses derived from the game over the last 6 months. The amounts should be in accounts by next Tuesday. Claims beyond 6 months will be accepted and honoured, too, but must be submitted individually.



The clear implication here is that BetFred had no idea about the issue, first learning of it via the forum at which it was raised. I can, however, prove that they were aware of the issue fully four years previously, and that the above implication of innocent unawareness is entirely false.


Later in January, a poster at the Beating Bonuses forum made the following surprising claim about the HiLo Gambler game that was, along with Reel Deel, the subject of the investigation:



01-29-2013, 01:43 PM

In 2008 I sent Fred an email which said


I [wish] ... to know if the game Hi-Lo Gambler, in the Games section (not casino) of the site [has] a 100% Return To Player - as indicated by the statistics on the 'help' section of this game, as this would be most unusual to have a game with no player- or house-advantage. If you could confirm this game really does have an expected return of 100%, I would be most grateful. Many thanks.


This was the reply:


I have looked into the RTP for Hi Lo Gambler and can confirm that the correct % should be 97% and not 100%.

Unfortunately the figure displayed within the help section is incorrect.


Interesting huh? The help file was never changed, and 4 years later someone else spotted it too Wish I had had time at the time to expose it myself.



Anonymous posters at online forums are not beyond making false claims, and given how extraordinary it would be for BetFred to have run this game for so long in the knowledge that it was essentially rigged, this claim could be regarded with skepticism - but for two facts.

The first is that Michael Shakleford, the "Wizard Of Odds", posted what amounted to a vote of confidence in the player at his forum:



January 29th, 2013 at 6:23:39 PM


This post by "bobsyouruncle" was made this morning at Beating Bonuses...


It would not surprise me at all if that post were truthful.



Second, a rather more compellingly, the player sent me a screen print of a discussion he had of the matter, on a private forum, in which is included the quote from BetFred. I reproduce his post below. The discussion took place on November 20th 2008:



I emailed Fred to simply ask him to confirm hilo gambler plays out 100% as stated on the site.

Imagine my amazement to receive this reply:


Dear (player)

I have looked into the RTP for HiLo Gambler and can confirm that the correct % should be 97% and not 100%.

Unfortunately the figure displayed within the help section is incorrect.


I think this is amazing. Firstly, the game can't be both random AND have a 97% payout - to pay 97% it has to be manipulated ie. rigged. This is sensational.

Secondly, they have (and still do) advertised the payout as 100% which is surely very bad form indeed? Anyone who lost money here is entitled to a full refund I would think.

Not going near this game again, or indeed any Fred games promo.



The thread then continues with a bit of discussion between the members. I was a member myself of this forum and I know most of the members taking part in the discussion, at least in terms of there forum identities. As such, I know the discussion is genuine.

It would also make no sense for the player to fake this claim. The forum is a private one where there could be nothing to be gained from such behaviour - the purpose of these forums is the exchange of benefitial information away from the public gaze. And in the light of the fact that four and a half years later the matter he reported in private came out into the public domain, in the exact same format he reported it, further demonstrates the integrity of the claim. The player has not, unfortunately, retained a copy of the email from BetFred, which is not surprising given the amount of time involved. However, his report is unquestionably genuine.


On this basis, it's apparent that BetFred, far from being first made aware of this matter in late 2012, actually had it brought to their attention in late 2008. And they did nothing. They did not remove the game. They did not correct the "incorrect" helpfile. They did nothing.

I wonder why?