Online Casino News

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

They said they're handling this internally.

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.

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 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."

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)

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)