When you first go to it a popup says:
“This strategy was tested Mid May 2006 against 5 leading makers of Internet Casino Software. Player survey indicates Playtech software being statistically most vulnerable to this strategy.”
He also says, during the Learn It part, “for optimum results there should be no deviation from this strategy”
This is misleading. Firstly, Playtech is not vulnerable to anything – he merely means “using this system I happened , by luck, to make more at Playtech than I did elsewhere.” Secondly, there are no “optimum results” – his system will lose 0.85% for the player over time, just as any other craps system will. The player could use his system, or they could flat-bet, or they could martingale – it makes no difference, over the long run they will always lose the same amount.
I agree that he hasn’t said emphatically “this will make you rich”. Perhaps you think that makes it acceptable, but I don’t.
Here’s an example: I play roulette for 5 days, playing 4 hours a day. I record 20,000 spins during that time. Every time I simply bet $10 on number 20.
At the end of the session I record a total win of $5000.
I then put on my affiliate site “I bet $10 on number 20 for 20,000 spins and I won $5000. My results indicate that Playtech is most statistically vulnerable to this technique, and for best results you should always bet $10 on number 20. Click here to try yourself!”
Is that misleading? Well, saying ‘statistically vulnerable to’ is misleading, because a) it isn’t b) what I should say is “I had best results at Playtech”, but by using big words and implying I actually tested it in some scientific way, I am dressing it up as something it isn’t. Also, by even putting the info on the site, I am implicitly implying that it works – why would I mention it otherwise?
What he is suggesting here is no different to the hundreds of ‘Get rich quick playing roulette/craps/blackjack’ systems available on the internet. It’s a fallacy designed to get money from those who don’t understand how casinos and mathematics work.
That said, I retract calling him a liar – I have no evidence that he’s cynically trying to manipulate players into believing they can win with this system, it may be that he actually believes it himself.
However I do think that this is misleading advertising.
One final example – would a consumer brand, let’s say Coca Cola, be allowed to run an advert that said “in a recent survey, 55% of respondents reported better sexual performance after drinking three cans of Coke?” No they wouldn’t, even if they did have one survey with those results.