home | about us | contact | site map | credits | disclaimer | bookmark

Online Casino News


Friday, March 31, 2006

Bella Vegas / Grand Prive Microgaming online casino group rogued by Casinomeister. The eCOGRA seal will not be revoked.


Bryan Bailey of Casinomeister has added the Grand Prive casino group, and specifically Bella Vegas Casino, to his rogue list:


Casinomeister Grand Prive Rogue List Entry

There has been a major issue brewing since August 2005 involving a under age gambler and Grand Prive casinos. This is a Microgaming group - nine casinos total - and they are eCOGRA certified. Here is the problem in a nutshell:

The player, who resides in Las Vegas, joined each one of these casinos made deposits and occasionally won here and there. She was never asked for her ID, and the fact that she was only 19 was never an issue. But when she made a larger withdrawal, the casino requested her ID. These are required by the agreement that the casino has with eCOGRA. They must ensure that the player is a legitimate person who is lawfully allowed to play. Well, she lives in Nevada, and the gambling age for jurisdiction is 21. So the casino voided her cash-in and returned her deposits. Sounds fair? Well fairness is not the issue here. The issue is a casino's accountability, responsibility, and their relationship with the online casino industry.

The casino failed to do it's due diligence. They have all of the power within their means to prevent under age gambling. They relied solely on their terms and conditions, and in these times when underage gambling is such a hot topic - this is unacceptable. Underage gambling is beyond nickels and dimes, it is a behavior that is prompting the Bible thumpers in the US to hop up on their soapboxes and preach about the evils of online gambling. Reliance on the gambler to police his or her activities is a careless and irresponsible attitude to take. There is no excuse to have let this happen.

The casino considered this case closed last August since they turned this over to eCOGRA which understandably ruled against paying this player. There is absolutely no way eCOGRA or any other entity could consider asking the casino to honor a dime of her winnings.

But to the average Joe player, this casino appeared to be selective in who they were paying. It seemed to them that once the player had a big win, the casino found a loophole and decided not to pay. "She's a teenager - don't pay her" And this is the furor of the public. In the eyes of most players, casinos are crooks - you have to earn the players' trust, and this whole scenario fanned these flames of suspicion.

The casino failed us - those who work in this industry - by not making a bold statement to this episode. I was trying to convince them that the only way to face this would be to take this player's winnings and donate them to either a charity of her choice, or to some other organization - perhaps Gambling Anonymous. This would have nullified the notion that this casino was being selective. It would have cost them 20k (or whatever amount the winnings were). Hopefully it would have made the player feel that her negative experience was transposed into something positive - feeding hungry kids, providing counseling to problem gamblers, giving the homeless a home.

It would have saved a lot of anguish for the casino. And most importantly, it would have demonstrated to everyone that casinos will not profit from catering to under age gamblers. In short, this would have made many positive messages and provided something for the needy.

But in the casino's short-sightedness, they have chosen not to do this.

I've discussed this situation with a number of people, and I am deeply frustrated. I feel that this casino group has let everyone in this industry down by just letting this be and not engaging themselves in this problem. And I question how many more players like this one are out there.

I hope this serves as a wake up call to operators who are not doing their due diligence on protecting their players, their casino, and the online casino industry.

Grand Prive Casino group, welcome to the rogues.


I absolutely support Bryan Bailey's stance.

This was originally commented on in the Casino Profitting From Underage Gambler article at Gamblog, and there was lengthy discussion at the WinnerOnLine forum and, more recently, in the Bella Vegas thread at Casinomeister.

Although the player will never see a cent of her money, she can take some comfort from all of this:

1) She has given Bella Vegas and the Grand Prive group about as much bad publicity for their roguish behaviour as she POSSIBLY could have.

2) She has helped give the online casino gambling industry a heck of a black eye. The industry will not forget this, nor will they forget Grand Prive / Bella Vegas's central role in it.


These are politically sensitive times for online gambling, with factions of the United States administration striving to have it illegalised with renewed determination, and online casinos need this kind of publicity right now as much as they need pick axes in their collective heads.

The fact that this player was effectively invited and encouraged to gamble underage at Bella Vegas, and that her underage status was subsequently used by the casino, by design or accident, to realise a profit to the tune of approximately $20,000 USD, is just the sort of damning evidence which could result in the US Congress making up their minds and finally outlawing online gambling. Their evidence to date has all been somewhat vague and error-ridden; now, the good senators have direct, damning evidence in support of their cause, because now it is apparent that online casinos are directly profitting from underage gamblers.

If the online gambling industry does now suffer the blow of seeing their US market dry up, Grand Prive / Bella Vegas can pat themselves on the back for the central role they played.

Well done, boys. Enjoy the $20,000 - it might end up the most expensive $20,000 you ever made.


Following the rogueing by Bryan Bailey, I contacted Andrew Beveridge, CEO of eCOGRA:


In the light of recent events, do you have any thoughts about revoking the eCOGRA seal on Grand Privè / Bella Vegas?

One should note that nothing has actually changed in a material sense from the beginning, and certainly not since our discussion, but Bryan Bailey's final conclusions and the rogueing of Privè do put the matter somewhat in the spotlight.

Specifically: the "about us" page states "...and that the operators will behave responsibly. Players will be assured of this when they transact with online gaming sites displaying the eCOGRA Seal of Approval."

In accepting seventeen deposits and paying three winnings without picking up on the underage problem (or ignoring it, however we choose to judge the matter), Bella Vegas has behaved with gross irresponsibility. I do not believe that Privè's maintenance of the eCOGRA seal is in the slightest way advantageous to eCOGRA, the industry or anyone involved in it - including me, LOL - in the circumstances.

I'd be interested to know your opinions on the matter.


Andrew's response:


Our position on the matter hasn't changed. The auditors recently performed an eGAP inspection on this operator and they confirmed that the responsible gaming requirements have been fully complied with. No further underage players were identified in this process. It would therefore certainly not be appropriate for us now to withdraw a seal based on a single occurrence which happened 9 months ago.

The reality of the situation too is that underage players are going to continue to find their way onto these sites until a foolproof practical system exists to identify them timeously. Roguing a casino every time this happens isn't going to solve the problem.


I disagree strongly with Andrew here. The eCOGRA "about us" page states as follows:


The primary objective of eCOGRA is to provide player protection...and that the operators will behave responsibly. Players will be assured of this when they transact with online gaming sites displaying the eCOGRA Seal of Approval.


While I understand Andrew's position, it cannot be denied that Bella Vegas have behaved with gross irresponsibility in the matter, and for them to be allowed to continue carrying the eCOGRA seal devalues the seal's worth immensely.



5 Previous Comments


I know what Beveridge will say before he says it these days.

The longer eCogra are around waffling and cherrypicking their way through, the funnier the bad joke gets.

Micro will pull the plug on this eCogra nonsense if the staff don't liven up.

You will be blamed 100% gambler. It will be all your fault for not being more objective regarding this objectionable pr stunt.

By Blogger Gamblog UK, at 3:02 am  


Bella Vegas should have offered to give the winnings to a charity of choice-it was stupid not to-and demonstrated GREED--the money was not thiers to keep as far as I am concerned!

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:53 am  


Morning Everyone,
I just found about this wonderful site. I'm happy to be here and apart of this group.
See you all soon,
Lanidar

By Blogger LANIDAR, at 4:08 pm  


Thanks, Lanidar.

I hope the site can be useful to you, albeit in the currently rather restrictive circumstances that American online gamblers find themselves in.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 12:46 am  


If you could e-mail me with a few suggestions on just how you made your blog look this excellent, I would be grateful.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:53 am  


Post a Comment

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

KAHNAWAKE GAMING COMMISSION: an ineffectual and worthless online gambling regulatory body


The Kahnawake Gaming Commission is the online casino licensing body that supplies the license to Golden Palace Casino to run their operation from within Kahnawake territory.

In 2004, Golden Palace sabotaged the Athens Olympic Games with a streaker at one of the synchronised swimming finals.

There was substantial fallout as a result: Golden Palace gained "dishonourable mention" in the Casinomeister rogue section, with the following comments...


Well what's the big deal? The big deal is that this wasn't just some swim meet at the local college, this was the Olympics. These athletes train their entire lives for this moment. Win or lose, this was their moment and no one else's. For some self-serving "fool in the pool" stealing this moment away is not only disrespectful to the spirit of the games, but extremely insensitive to the players who were distracted by the interruption and confusion.


...and, in a precedent-setting move, the Kahnawake Commission publically sanctioned Golden Palace (this comment can be found by going to "News", then "News Archives" at the bottom, then scrolling to the bottom of that page):


In the past two weeks, the Kahnawake Gaming Commission (KGC) has received numerous complaints concerning an incident at the Olympic Games in Athens involving a person who ?streaked? an event displaying the name of one of the KGC?s permit holders: Golden Palace.

The KGC did not approve or condone the incident in question and does not approve or condone this type of 'marketing' by its permit holders.

After investigating the Athens incident and meeting with representatives of Golden Palace, the KGC has directed that:

1. Golden Palace will not use, promote, encourage or fund this type of 'marketing' ever again, and

2. Given the seriousness of the incident and the negative effect it has had on the community's reputation, Golden Palace will make a substantial donation to Kahnawake organizations to be identified by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake.

The KGC is satisfied with Golden Palace?s cooperation throughout and considers the matter closed.

For further information, contact the Kahnawake Gaming Commission at 450-635-1076.

Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake
3 September, 2004


Note the part in bold:


Golden Palace will not use, promote, encourage or fund this type of 'marketing' ever again.


In February 2006, Golden Palace, in DIRECT contravention of the above Kahnawake ruling, did the exact same thing - they sabotaged the Winter Olympics with a streaker at one of the Curling events. The matter was reported at Casinomeister, and Kahnawake were contacted by Bailey. Since they had required that Golden Palace not repeat the stunt, surely sanctions would now swiftly follow?

Fully two weeks and four emails later, this was Bailey's report on their response:


Well, a little over two weeks and four emails later, Kahnawake finally acknowledged my existence.

They said they're handling this internally.


And that was it.


The Kahnawake Gaming Commission have no option on this one:

1) Their response after the first incident was that Golden Palace should not repeat this act of sabotage.

2) Golden Palace ignored them, and repeated it.

3) Kahnawake are going to do nothing.

A genuine regulatory body would have no option but to revoke the license on a licensee so flagrantly in contravention of their rulings.

Kahnawake have proved that, as a genuine "regulatory jurisdiction", they are ineffectual and worthless. How can you claim to "regulate" an entity when they completely ignore your directives and you do absolutely nothing about it?

eCOGRA recently got together with Kahnawake - see the Kahnawake recognizes eCOGRA principles of fair gaming press release of November 2005.

This is what eCOGRA say about the Kahnawake Gaming Commission:


The Commission's Regulations concerning Interactive Gaming were promulgated in July 1999, and are generally accepted as a model for regulating the global online gaming industry.


If this is true, then the online gambling industry is in a very, very sorry state of disrepair.

How can this ineffectual licensing jurisdiction be held up as a "model for regulating the global online gaming industry"?

UPDATE January 2008:

For Kahnawake's latest stab at regulation, see the Kahnawake Gaming Commission whitewash of Absolute Poker article.



1 Previous Comments


Bryan Bailey commented on the Kahnawake Gaming Commission in his latest webcast. The entry starts 9'45" from the beginning, and is worth a listen - it's really very good indeed.

By Blogger 100% Gambler, at 9:39 pm  


Post a Comment

Sunday, March 19, 2006

GAMBLING FEDERATION: blacklisted by The Wizard Of Odds for $10,000 winnings confiscation


This is a matter that originally came to light in July 2005.

Player Christopher B signed up at several Gambling Federation casinos, took the sign up bonus at each and played high-stakes roulette.

In total, he won approximately $10,000 after a couple of successful roulette hits and several thousand dollars of slots wagering.

Gambling Federation revoked his winnings, citing the apparent illegality of his multiple accounts across several casinos, which they subsequently seemed to change this in favour of allegations of "game fraud" - more details of which can be found in the thread I posted at Casinomeister - Gambling Federation: rules adhered to but winnings stolen.

After the intercession of Bryan Bailey of Casinomeister, G-Fed refunded the player's deposits; his winnings remain unpaid.

Since "game fraud" is a bit of a puzzling phrase, I asked the Gambling Federation management about it when I met them at the London International Casino Exhibition in January - see my "Gambling Federation: a discussion at the ICE" article. Basically, "game fraud" as defined by G-Fed is a kind of "bonus optimisation", playing in such a way as to have the best chance of holding on to as much of the bonus as possible.

Intruigingly, the case pretty much exactly mirrors ANOTHER case, at pretty much exactly the same time - see my Gambling Federation: from malware to grand larceny article. This player, as you can see in the follow up resolution article, was paid. He also had "multiple accounts".

Additionally, the specific rules on the G-Fed sites do not specify that you may only have one account across the whole family of Gambling Federation casinos - this section is taken from the Selective Casino rules page, one of the casinos at which Christopher B played:


Player may only operate one active account at any time. Players opening multiple accounts without first voiding their existing account are subject to being excluded from the Casino with all wins forfeited. In order to void an account, Players must contact Customer Support.


The "multiple accounts" here clearly refer to accounts at the individual casino, NOT the entire family of casinos.


Since the player could get no satisfaction on claiming his winnings, he asked Michael Shakleford, the "Wizard Of Odds", to mediate.

Michael also failed to get satisfaction for him, and as a result has now blacklisted Gambling Federation - so the Wizard Of Odds blacklist page for details:


The first reason is non-payment of winnings.

In May 2005 A player by the initials CB opened accounts at 10 Gambling Federation casinos in the same day, all with the same bonus, and played them all in rapid succession. He had large wins at two of them, for a large overall net win. The Gambling Federation refunded all ten deposits for the reason he was clearly a bonus abuser. It is a long story but in the end they site the following rule as reason enough not to pay, although other reasons were originally disputed, "The Casino management reserves the right to withhold any funds if it suspects any foul play or manipulation with the Casino. It is recognized and agreed to by the Player that, in the case of any discrepancy whatsoever, management's decision on all matters will be final.

The reason I blame G-Fed, as opposed to just the two casinos shown above, is that the decision to not pay the winnings came from G-Fed and not individual casino management.

Secondly, as reported by Casinomeister in February 2005 downloads from G-Fed casinos included malware (short for malicious software) to block access to some competing sites. They claimed it was because the casinos in questions misappropriated their client database and spammed G-Fed customers. After they were caught G-Fed apologized, stating their actions were based on "emotive judgement" and "not justified."


Now that such a highly-regarded webmaster has expressed his opinion that the player is entitled to his winnings, will Gambling Federation see the light and pay him?

I remain hopeful for a positive outcome.



0 Previous Comments


Post a Comment

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Playtech sued for patent infringement


Playtech, currently heading towards the UK stockmarket - see my Playtech confirmed listing on the UK stockmarket article - are now apparently having to defend a lawsuit on the grounds of patent infringement, according to the Israel business news site Globes Online.



Austrian company Lubar and its CEO, Yaakov Rafaeli of Rishon LeZion, have filed a lawsuit with the Tel Aviv District Court against Playtech Cyprus Ltd for patent infringement relating to its system and method for remote online gambling at actual casinos. Playtech, controlled by Teddy Sagi, develops technology for online gambling sites and provides services to online gambling operators.

(more)



Although the article is not very specific on the exact nature of the alleged infringement, a lawsuit is not exactly the best turn of events for a company on the verge of an IPO on the UK Alternative Investment Market.



0 Previous Comments


Post a Comment

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Meeting with Andrew Beveridge of eCOGRA


I met up with Andrew Beveridge of eCOGRA - "e-Commerce Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance" - last Tuesday, at their London Offices in Berkeley Square. Andrew had invited me as an offshoot of our email correspondence over the Bella Vegas issue, and since I had long had issues I wanted to discuss with them, this was the ideal opportunity to get it on.

Andrew agreed to be recorded; unfortunately, I managed to run out of tape after the first 45 minutes and will have to rely on memory to report beyond the first two matters.

This report is very long, so I'm including navigation links which will take you to the relevant sections:

The Lake Palace incident and general dispute competence

Bella Vegas: the underage gambling issue

Independence of eCOGRA and conflict of interests

G4 - the "Global Gambling Guidance Group"

TGTR - "Total Gaming Transaction Review"

Concluding remarks




The Lake Palace incident and general dispute-competence


This regarded a highly contentious bonus-disqualification issue discussed at Casinomeister 18 months ago - see the Lake Palace do an Omni thread. To summarize the incident: the player made a large deposit, at Lake Palace Casino, for an advertised bonus and was refused it on the basis of his bonus-orientated play; the player complained to eCOGRA; Tex Reese, the Fair Gaming Advocate, found for the casino on the basis of the casino's catch-all "we reserve the right" clause; the player complained in the above thread, and after much fallout eCOGRA reversed their atrocious decision.

My question to Andrew was: what happened here? Why did you change your minds, and on what basis?


Before going onto the answer, I should preface my remarks here, exactly as I did to Andrew, by saying that eCOGRA was never set up to be another "Safebet" or "OPA" - a meaningless rubber stamp we can laugh off. From the outset, eCOGRA was a highly-touted, highly-publicised initiative between two of the biggest software providers, Microgaming and Cassava, and the recipient of much high-profile coverage from Bryan Bailey at Casinomeister, Brian Cullingworth via his Infopowa news service, and a lot of other high-profile press from other high-profile outlets. eCOGRA hit the ground running fast with all the adherent advantages to themselves and the casinos to which they issue the seals. The "downside" for eCOGRA - if I may express it that way - is that they must now answer to a higher set of values, and be prepared to be called to task and justify their decisions and actions to an extent that few other organisations have ever been required so to do.


eCOGRA have put themselves in the spotlight and must answer to the spotlight. In the following discussion I am extremely hard on the eCOGRA Fair Gaming Advocate; I make absolutely no apology for this.


So, what happened here?

Andrew was extremely upfront about this: he ran me over the basic events from his end, and stated unequivocally that both the casino representative responsible for bonus disqualification, and Tex Reese, the Fair Gaming Advocate, got it wrong. When he was alerted to the message board situation (by whom, I don't know), he got onto the manager of the Lake Palace group and between them they agreed that a mistake had been made at both ends, both by Lake Palace and eCOGRA, the mistake was rectified and the player was paid. There was no subsequent evidence that came to light to change the decision (this was suggested to me by one high-profile webmaster as the only reasonable justification for the decision reversal); this was simply a mistake.


My follow-up question was: how could such a remedial mistake be made? Bonus-disqualifications are the NUMBER ONE cause of player complaints; if a player has a problem with a casino, ninety five percent of the time a bonus will be a the root. If an online casino watchdog hasn't got their "rules of conduct between player and casino when a bonus is involved" handbook, something is wrong. Furthermore, this was an easy call, as no rules were infringed and the player was entitled. How could such a remedial mistake, on such a remedial issue, be made - and by such a highly touted organisation?

Andrew's response was to point out that this mistake has never been repeated subsequently: after maybe a thousand issues, this was the only one to have been so badly screwed up. In response to my interjection that this was something of a sign of inexperience, Andrew pointed out that Tex had had only about eight months' worth of experience of the job at that time, and had never come across a situation like this. As balance, Andrew also pointed out that they've received appreciative feedback from players on other issues.

In summary, and I quote: "It was a once off, we all learned from it, and that's an end of it."


I followed this up by asking why it was that a person inexperienced in these matters was put in the position of ever having to deal with them at all - why give such a job to an inexperienced person? Why not cast the net a bit wider and find someone with the know-how they'd need to handle these issues?

Andrew's response here was to say that bonus-disqualifications are only a part of the job. I, myself, may see them as the biggest area of contention, but they're only a part, and there are other aspects I am apparently not aware of.

What other aspects? At this point, I tried to elicit examples of player dispute management that would be beyond, for example, my own area of expertise, and that of many other people with long experience of the online gambling business - and people who would, in my opinion, be better qualified for such a job (I should point out I wasn't hankering after the job myself here).

What does Tex have to deal with that an experienced person, who would not make remedial bonus-disqualification errors, would not be up to scratch with?

Andrew and I back-and-forthed quite a bit here; he mentioned issues of game-fairness as a big area of player disquiet. I asked how you could handle this any way other than explaining politely to the player that as far as eCOGRA is concerned the games are certified fair by PWC? Andrew also spoke of general back office admin know-how, knowing the operators, being on good terms with them etc etc.

I don't dispute this is of value, but again I do not see this as a skill outside the competence of any reasonably intelligent person, whereas the nitty-gritty of bonus issues most definitely IS.


On this, Andrew and I ultimately disagree. My own feeling is that, based on this evidence, this key role went to the wrong person; Andrew's stance is that one mistake out of a thousand is acceptable and that the person doing this particular job is the right one. Fair enough; on this matter, he and I are not at one.

(Back to content links.)






Bella Vegas: the underage gambling issue


This relates to the matter discussed at length at the WinnerOnline forum in the Bella Vegas discussion, and about which Andrew and I exchanged emails.

Summary: Underage player deposited 17 times and cashed out three times; upon request of a substantial cash out - £13,000 GBP - she was investigated and found to be underage according to the jurisdiction she resides in, Nevada; eCOGRA, taking council from G4, recommended that the casino not pay her because of her underage status, as amongst other things this would open a whole can of worms and establish a dangerous precedent.


I don't dispute that Andrew made the "right" call on the above basis; however, my interest in re-raising this matter heads up between us was to ask if it would not have been, or yet be, possible to find a compromise that would NOT have so wholly disadvantaged the girl? Not to pay anything as a "debt" or "winnings", but to find a compromise solution, a goodwill gesture or something along these lines? There was an opportunity for quite a bit of kudos for all parties involved - could a solution not have been found?


Essentially, we didn't get any further on this than we did via our email exchange - my request to rethink and our follow up exchange; Andrew remains firm on this matter, that the risk of setting a dangerous precedent far outweighs any possible kudos from a player-friendly resolution. If an underage player successfully "circumvents" the casino controls on sign up until such a time as they cash out, payment is too slippery a slope to go down - what if it were a five year old? Also, Andrew draws the parallels with same situation on land - an underage player can play. Again, I pointed out that in my own experience security is VERY tight at the Vegas tables - ID checks are made for anyone who looks under 40 - and, again covering old ground, that walking into a casino is NOT the same as signing into a piece of software - the checks are right there and then.


Andrew turned things over to me here and asked if there were any reasonable options for a completely foolproof method that would guarantee no underage players, in my opinion. He contends that age-verification pre-deposit is not an option for casino operators, because it's basically an intrusive turn off and will just not work. In short, it's a practical impossibility to have foolproof system that does not discourage players. I pointed out that Cryptologic, for example, have a marginally "inconvenient" upfront check, in the form of a mailed pin number, before a player can physically cash out. Andrew pointed out that this is not an age-check, but an anti-fraud device, and though this is the kind of player "turn off" the operators dislike apparently working successfully, it is not a way of guarding against underage play.


At this point we arrived at a bone of contention: I said that, notwithstanding the difficulty of finding an acceptable solution, players are being DISADVANTAGED by receiving only their deposits back - as did this player. Andrew did not consider this unfair. To make the point, I gave the example of a player making 37 deposits into 37 casinos, placing one wager on one inside roulette bet, losing 36 deposits, winning on one, and on that one having the winnings confiscated and the deposit returned. This basically turns a 2.7% house edge into a near enough 100% house edge. Andrew took this point, but said that this is not happening in any great degree - he recalls only two such issues since the beginning.


To summarise Andrew's stance: there is no option for any form of compensation to this player on the basis of setting a dangerous precedent; to make age-verification checks at the point of signup is not a realistic option; and that fairness is achieved by the return of the players' deposits.

To summarise my own: I believe that a solution could have been achieved that would NOT have set an unfortunate precedent - one such was suggested by a webmaster halfway through the Bella Vegas thread; additionally, however difficult it might be to age-check at the outset, it is not acceptable to disadvantage potentially unwitting underage players with an inadequate system. It is up to the makers of the system to find an answer to the problem - to say that this is impossible is not acceptable.

(Back to content links)





Independence of eCOGRA and conflict of interests


eCOGRA is funded by Microgaming / Cassava; how can you pay the wages of those people who regulate you, without creating a conflict of interests?

I asked Andrew for a brief description of what constitutes the "independence" of eCOGRA: the three non-eCOGRA directors - Hirst, Catania and Galston - have no interest in the providers Microgaming and Cassava; these folk award - and potentially revoke - the seals; they also have "override" powers over the other directors, so in the event of disagreement between executive and non-executive directors, the independent panel's vote would carry; they're paid a nominal salary, but not enough, in Andrew's opinion, to jeopardise their integrity in favour of an eCOGRA casino.


On the direct matter of conflict of interests by being paid by those you regulate: Andrew points out that it's the licensees - in the case of Microgaming - who are being regulated, not the providers themselves (the case with Cassava is different); the licensees pay nothing. The providers would no doubt welcome somebody else stepping up to the plate and funding the initiative, but it's not happening. The setup is NOT ideal - Andrew acknowledges this - but to quote him directly, "It's not the best situation, but I think it works because of the way we've constituted the company in terms of giving the control of it to the independent directors."


I suggested that there were potential alternate models that may be regarded as better / more "independent" - such as the Player Committee of the old Online Player Association; would these be things to consider? This got us back to talking about dispute resolution again. Essentially, Andrew's stance if "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"; that said, he does not rule out the possibility of player-involvement down the line, and, as he pointed out, the fact of us sitting down having our discussion is evidence that doors are open in one form or another; also, he is in contact with players as and when is needed. In essence: the system works, though the imperfect system of funding by those you regulate is not ideal; beyond that, there is potential for a future broadening of the system from its currently slightly incestuous basis.

(Back to content links)



(At this point, my tape recorder clicked off. We were within five minutes of the end of our scheduled session, so I didn't bother to turn the thing over. This turned out to be a fine mistake, as we carried on for a further half hour, but I really didn't particularly want to interrupt the flow by fiddling with the equipment again. I'm left to report the rest from memory, so it will inevitably be a little sketchy, my memory being absolute crap.)




G4 - the "Global Gambling Guidance Group"


I'd intended to bring this matter up myself, but Andrew mentioned it before I had the chance.

G4 have a large set of "suggested practices". Microgaming casinos really do not do a particularly good job of respecting the guidelines, and Cassava even less so; is it credible to be hooked up with an organisation whose guidelines your members so disregard?


Andrew makes no bones of the fact that the G4 guidelines are simply impractical to implement for the members - the "age verification" guideline we had already covered in great deal, in which he made the case for age-verification upfront being a serious problem in terms of realistic implementation. It's also true that the "reality checks" guidelines are extremely taxing for online casinos. On the upside, G4 provides valuable backup - as an example, the Bella Vegas issue, in which Andrew liaised with G4 and accepted their guidance; there have been other spin-offs, for example the recent Kahnawake Gambling Commission interest in issues of player protection came about, amongst other reasons, as a result of the eCOGRA alliance with G4.


My own feeling here is that, difficulties notwithstanding and acknowledged, it is ironic that an alliance is formed where there is such disregard for the code of practice of one party on the part of the members of the other. Practicalities notwithstanding, it is ironic. At the same time, if eCOGRA consider there is player-benefit to be had as a result of the alliance, that the alliance should then not exist simply because of the serious infringement of the G4 code on the part of Microgaming / Cassava may also not be the optimal situation.

All things considered, I DO consider the code of practice's inadequate implementation an issue, though I acknowledge Andrew's points.

(Back to content links)





TGTR - "Total Gaming Transaction Review"


This was a matter already discussed at length at WOL, and I wasn't necessarily expecting anything new to crop up running it by Andrew; I did, however, want to outline concerns that have been raised.

For anyone unfamiliar with this, you can read up on it at the relevant TGTR egap page. In essence, it represents eCOGRA's "fair gaming guarantee".


My basic contention, and that of several other people, has always been that since the collection / verification of data process is secret, it can have little credibility or relevance to the gambling public - what is the point of a "fair gaming guarantee" about which we know absolutely nothing beyond being told that it exists?


Again, Andrew acknowledged the point, and he outlined reasons why PriceWaterhouseCooper have always kept this process a tightly guarded secret: risk from competitors, misinterpretation / misunderstanding of the facts etc. However, he also told me that PWC DO routinely conduct seminars on the subject - they were due to do one, if I recall this correctly, for the Alderney Gambling Commission this past weekend. He also told me that he has lobbied PWC for greater disclosure on the matter, for them to go beyond conducting question and answer sessions purely for close-knit sections of the gambling industry and start to look towards the possibility of reaching out to a wider audience, including possibly interested players / portal owners and such like. This hasn't happened yet, but he is apparently pushing for it.


Also, although this process is entirely outsourced and eCOGRA plays no part in it whatsoever, the basics of what is involved is not unknown to them - Andrew outlined a small part of it to me, including the odd-sounding name of one of the processes involved which I can't remember for the life of me. He also contends that it isn't excessively complex, and that a straightforward presentation of it, along the lines of what he has apparently lobbied PWC for, is enough to inform and ally concerns about the integrity of the data collection process.


Fair enough, and all this is good to know - so watch this space. If any of the above comes to pass, we can re-judge, and for my part I hope this happens. Until it DOES happen, one is inevitably left thinking that that which is entirely undisclosed and unexplained in any shape or form whatsoever cannot be regarded with much credibility.
If the games are "proven fair", show me HOW.

Hopefully this will now start to materialise.

(Back to content links)



At this point, Andrew was now left with ten minutes to prepare for the meeting he had been hoping to have at least a half hour to work on, so we shook hands and went our separate ways.


I hope the above is a faithful representation of Andrew's responses - particularly the last half hour that I failed to get on tape. I'd like to thank him for taking a decent chunk of his afternoon to speak to me, particularly in light of the fact that he and eCOGRA have taken a fair amount of flack from some of us. Although there are plenty of contentious issues remaining, it'd be fair to say that going heads up and getting things on the table was a positive step - and several new things did certainly come out that I was unaware of.

Page top



1 Previous Comments


The whole thing is a play on words.

"He also told me that he has lobbied PWC for greater disclosure on the matter, for them to go beyond conducting question and answer sessions purely for close-knit sections of the gambling industry and start to look towards the possibility of reaching out to a wider audience, including possibly interested players / portal owners and such like. This hasn't happened yet, but he is apparently pushing for it.

For 4 years Ecogra have been assuring the games are fair. Seems to me if Beveridge were not working for Ecogra, he would question the validity of Ecogra assuring players the game is fair too.

By Blogger Gamblog UK, at 11:41 pm  


Post a Comment


May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | July 2010 | August 2010 | October 2010 | November 2010 | December 2010 | January 2011 | February 2011 | March 2011 | April 2011 | May 2011 | June 2011 | July 2011 | August 2011 | September 2011 | December 2011 | February 2012 | May 2012 | July 2012 | August 2012 | March 2016 | April 2016 | June 2016 | November 2016 | December 2016 | March 2017 | May 2017 | June 2017 | August 2017 | Atom feed
© 2005 hundred percent gambling

ONLINE CASINO NEWS

• Online casino news


2016

• Can't split 10s?
• Overbetting
• EV charts
• The IPCA
• Basic strategy master
• Back to the future
• Site hack

2015

• Better comp value
• Pit bosses are a pest
• 32Red buys Roxy Palace
• Winneronline is gone
• Paradise Win Casino
• Blackjack simple strategy

2014

• Court refuses Ivey winnings
• Phil Ivey versus Crockfords
• 32Red does the right thing
• Wizard Of Odds sold
• Gambling addict sues Ritz
• Better blackjack conditions
• FL: the beat goes on
• Phil Ivey and the Borgata
• LadbrokesFOBT profit
• Chat with the Met
• "Bonus abuse" and the Met
• Casino industry crooks.
• Debate to curb the FOBTs
• Labour idea to ban FOBTs

2013

• Ruby Fortune: terms buried
• Royal Vegas: bad outcome
• Russia illegalises gambling
• RV: player breaks no rules
• Gib casinos and UK laws
• The GGC (GRA) useless
• BetFred rigged games 9
• BetFred rigged games 8
• Betfred rigged games 7
• BetFred rigged games 6
• BetFred rigged games 5
• BetFred rigged games 4
• Phil Ivey: is he entitled?
• BetFred rigged games 3
• Betfred rigged games 2
• BetFred: rigged games 1
•  UK GLA Act 2013
• 888.com and Facebook
• Crockfords denies Phil Ivey
• Bad dealers
• Betfair Blackjack test
• Playtech software update
• Cheap blackjack
• Hippodrome Casino

2012

• The UK's FOBT addiction
• Conan Casino beware
• Intercasino misleading
• Fortune Lounge
• UK Gambling Commission

2011

• Small Claims Court
• Gamcare
• Full Tilt Poker saved
• Full Tilt ponzi scheme
• Casino Barcelona
• Irakli Kacharava
• Betfair processor no pay
• Full Tilt licensing meeting
• UK Gambling Commission
• Full Tilt Poker investors
• Full Tilt license suspended
• Twitter
• Betfair resolution
• Casino Web Scripts 2
• 32Red bonus marketing
• Casino Web Scripts 1
• Poker domains seized
• eCOGRA independent?
• Easystreet Sports theft
• Betfair to Gibraltar
• Rigged blackjack 2
• Betfair responses
• Rigged blackjack
• 888.com theft
• Betfair poker problem
• UK gambling controls
• Harry Reid

2010

• eWallet Xpress
• Kevin Stillmock
• Blog back up
• Betfair happy hour
• Ladbrokes bonus increase
• Absolute Poker tricks US
• Absolute Poker rigged
• Last position no difference
• Basic strategy simplified
• Online casino bonuses
• Righthaven LLC
• Ladbrokes bonus rules
• Malta LGA nonsense
• Purple Lounge theft
• UK affiliates issue
• Online casino problems
• GPWA code of conduct
• One Club Casino problems
• Rushmore theft resolved
• Realtime Gaming cheats
• Absolute Poker Ultimate Bet
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Ask gamblers service
• Intercasino bonus terms
• Profitting from poverty
• Gambling dooms UK to ruin
• Want To Stop Gambling
• Gambling Therapy
• Gordon Moody Association
• Breakeven
• Online gambling jobs
• Gamblock
• Gamble Aware
• Gamblers Anonymous
• Gamcare
• Video poker auto hold
• Gambling Wages help offer
• Blackjack double down
• Intercasino rules
• Tradition Casino warning
• Tradition Casino problem
• Be The Dealer
• eCOGRA approved casinos
• UK underage gambling
• iGaming Super Show
• eCOGRA reputable portals
• eCOGRA exposed
• Slots Oasis warning
• Slots Oasis problem
• HR 2267 comments
• HR 2267 proposed bill
• Search fully functional
• Gambling hearing delayed
• Betfair download blackjack
• Betfair blackjack
• The Federal Wie Act
• Casino Rewards warning
• Kahnawake dumps GP
• GP dumps Microgaming
• UK online gambling
• Gambling checklist
• Online casino problems
• Gambling Grumbles
• Casino Rewards
• Brian Cullingworth
• Casino Wager Tracker
• Grand Prive affiliates
• Jackpots Heaven Casino
• Kahnawake commission
• UK gambling problem
• eCOGRA and Grand Prive
• Bet365 misleading bonus
• Mastercard and Visa
• Online gambling rules
• 32Red sign up bonus
• Ladbrokes data theft
• Ladbrokes unfair settlement
• Palace group bonus rules
• Grand Prive and eCOGRA

2009

• Blackjack in the UK
• Seminole Hard Rock
• The APCW and MG
• Sportsbook.com
• Slot beaters slot strategy
• Rushmore Casino theft
• Paddy Power affiliates
• Slots
• 888.com problem
• The UIGEA
• Neteller contest winner
• 888.com bonus problem
• Casino Club meeting
• Online casino directory
• 32Red debit card bonus
• Blue Square Casino
• Budapest Affiliate Expo
• Rushmore payment issues
• Modern Blackjack volume 1
• Eurolinx certain insolvency
• Buzzluck winnings theft
• PaddyPower removed
• 32Red lawsuit
• William Hill Casino Club
• Betfair video poker
• APCW underage children
• Odds page updates
• VP Genius
• Video poker page updates
• Blackjack page updates
• Progression page updates
• Single deck page updates
• Betfair Playtech license
• Cherry Red Casino
• Online gambling debate
• William Hill & Teddy Sagi
• Rogue casinos section
• Pontoon correction
• Microgaming poker scandal
• Casino Club confiscation
• Casino Club steals €8000
• Villa Fortuna Casino
• Grand Prive affiliate issue
• CAP and Cardspike 2
• Virgin Casino bad results
• CAP and Cardspike 1

2008

• iNetbet removal from site
• Mario Galea and Malta LGA
• Cold Mountain Resort
• The AGCC
• Moneybookers privacy
• Virtual Casino rebranding
• Captain Jack Casino
• Royal Ace Casino
• Ringmaster Casino
• Catseye Casino
• Lucky Palm Casino
• Pharaohs Gold Casino
• Goldstream Casino
• Plantet 7 Casino
• Betfair bonus confiscation
• Malta LGA worthless
• The GIA
• Interwetten theft of £5000
• Lucky Ace winnings stolen
• The KGC and Absolute

2007

• HippoJo Casino
• Microgaming All Aces VP
• Neteller issues
• Lou Fabiano responds
• Lou Fabiano selling stats
• Betfair Zero Lounge
• ICE 2007 brief visit
• RTG cancels ICE visit

2006

• Crystal Palace Casino theft
• eCOGRA & Jackpot Factory
• English Harbour cheating
• Boss Media single deck
• Bella Vegas / Grand Prive
• The KGC worthless
• Gambling Federation
• Playtech sued
• Meeting Andrew Beveridge
• Playtech confirmed listing
• African Palace Casino
• G-Fed ICE discussion
• Playtech ICE meeting
• Playtech issues escalation
• Chartwell hands off

2005

• Crystal Gaming silence
• Price Waterhouse Cooper
• Crystal Gaming flotation 2
• Vegas Frontier
• Crystal Gaming flotation 1
• Playtech public listing
• African Palace & Indio
• Kiwi Casino
• Rochester Casino
• G-Fed theft 2
• Warren Cloud best avoided
• Golden Palace stupidity 3
• Golden Palace stupidity 2
• G-Fed theft 1
• Golden Palace stupidity 1
• Russia online expansion
• Wan Doy Pairs Poker
• Microgaming CPU usage
• Net Entertainment RNG
• Cryptologic & William Hill
• Casino growth slow
• English Harbour paying
• Fraudster or not
• Blackjack surrender
• Integrity casino group audit