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.
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.