Meeting with Andrew Beveridge of eCOGRA

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.)

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)