More eCOGRA Seals Awarded

[rowmare]

That's interesting - I got that information off of Microgaming's website a while back, but it doesn't seem to be there anymore.

Well, geez, now I'm going to have to do more research. I've taken information for granted without prying the lid off and exploring it fully.

It's worth noting, however, that not all the casinos which have a logo from a "well-known international accounting firm" are audited; some are simply reviewed.

[jpm]

I am not accusing of MG of cheating, but I would like to know what TGTR involves, so that I can decide for myself whether it is really worth something. I won't trust something just because an accounting firm says that they have checked something by a secret process and the results were OK.

I'd agree with that. That little PWC logo you see on most casinos & casino websites has never given me any comfort or assurance that I was getting a fair shake for the exact reasons you mentioned (enron, etc). I have hope though for eCOGRA approval offering the assurance and comfort that the casino had to go through some scrutiny before they were awarded the seal. And that they have to answer to a code of conduct and answer to eCOGRA if a player has a problem with them.

The way I see it, isn't SOME regulation better than nothing? Right now we've got nothing but volunteers like Bryan & co. who help people out of the goodness of their hearts and I think we agree they are worth much more than what they're paid. He could get fed up and tell us we're on our own at any moment.

To have a central place that is in essence doing not only what Bryan does after there's a problem, but start out before there is a problem by investigating and requiring the casino abide by a certain code of conduct and ethics is extremely valuable. Lets give them a chance to prove (or disprove) themselves. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity for them to do so, and the early reports so far look good.

[jetset]

Good post that gets back to the real and practical values of eCOGRA, JPM.

However, it worries me when Enron et al internal crookery is used as a blanket example of why we should distrust accounting firms. Tarring everyone with the same brush has never sat well with me.

Great as the temptation may be after the high profile corporate failings of last year, I do not believe anyone can reasonably consign all accounting / business service providers to the "unreliable" and "distrust" category as easily as that. In the case of Barings for example the primary failure was rampant but devious criminal actions by a trusted employee of the bank. A deliberate act of commission with criminal motivation. That resulted in collateral damage to companies such as the auditors.

Trust and honesty in professional oversight companies like PwC goes to the heart of the business element in our society and imo is not taken lightly by those involved.

In the present debate we are considering one of the largest of those oversight groups, and a unique and proprietary analytical process that it has specifically and expertly developed for the third party continuous monitoring of online gambling operations. That system has been accepted by leading elements in the industry as fair and efficient.

In the case of services to the online gambling industry, the reward for PwC is probably a very small part of their overall multi-national income. I find it highly unlikely that a group of this stature and reputation would risk the billions of dollars of business they do in other sectors by being a party to anything questionable that might impact on their reputation.

Nothing but professional and honest behaviour in regard to the TGTR would be countenanced, and their integrity is impressive.

Conspiracy theories such as those presented earlier in this thread by DaveR implying that PwC would be anything but confidential, professional and impartial in assessing eCOGRA applicants is similarly unlikely to say the least. The liklihood of them passing on information from one applicant to another via eCOGRA for example is in my opinion not only insulting, but ridiculous.

[rowmare]

I agree. To use Enron an a blanket example of why we shouldn't trust accounting firms is completely baseless and rediculous.

Unless, of course, the accounting firm at hand is in bed with the Bush clan.

How George Bush Jr. Got Layed

Federal Election Commission records show that Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay donated more than $350,000 directly to Bush campaigns since 1997.

Lay also gave another $100,000 to Republican candidates and fundraising committees.

In addition, Enron Corporation, including employees, also donated $1.5 million in soft money to Bush and Republican committees.

More recently, Lay and his wife donated $10,000 to the "Florida Recount Fund," and another $100,000 to the "Presidential Inaugural Fund."

As one of his fundraising "Pioneers," Lay helped raise more than $100,000 for Bush's campaign for president.

That is the tip of the Enron iceburg.

[jetset]

I guess that would depend on the definition of Enron as an "accounting firm", whether the donations were made from personal or company funds and properly declared and whether it is right and proper for corporate America to donate funds to Republican and Democrat political causes - or were those donations made personally to Dubya?

I don't personally much care for the practice, but it's a part of most societies. In my own country for example the recent general elections were preceded by a plethora of media stories on how much money various major national corporates had donated to which political parties. Some of them had a sliding scale so that all parties got something relative to their size and influence. In the end it's you and I as shareholders who are really paying.

[jpm]

The problem with the big accounting firms is that they typically do consulting work for the clients they are supposed to be auditing. That was a big reason why many of these huge companies like Enron, Worldcom, etc were able to show favorable audits, yet go bankrupt due to improprieties in their accounting practices. The so-called auditing companies had so much revenue coming from the consulting side of the business (more than from the accounting side) that they didn't want to risk losing business that by giving an unfavorable audit. In effect, the inmates were in charge of the asylums there and there was a clear conflict of interest going on, but until the sh*t hit the fan, nobody wanted to acknowledge it. This was the basis for my broad brush painting. Since then, they firms have separated the two businesses (auditing & consulting) or companies will employ one firm for consulting and another for auditing so I think its probably more reliable now.

(sorry for the sidetrac, just wanted to explain why I felt that way about the PWC logo)

[dave_r]

To all those who think I'm a conspiracy theorist, I wish to remind you about all the times I have been right in the past. I stand by my comments regarding Moshal and eCogra, and will go into more details as to TIES between these 2 orginizations in the future.

As far as Fortune Lounge goes, after 4 years of gambling with them, they have given me the boot. However, my accounts are open at all other Microgaming powered gambling dens. Fortune Lounge simply doesn't like players who extract to much money on a frequent basis. I have been lied to and told my IP address is suspect of being linked tosomeone else. This is the biggest lie I ever heard in my life. JUST TELL ME THE TRUTH. I don't mind being blacklisted for winning too much, but at least don't lie to me about it.

[jetset]

QUOTE: To all those who think I'm a conspiracy theorist, I wish to remind you about all the times I have been right in the past. I stand by my comments regarding Moshal and eCogra, and will go into more details as to TIES between these 2 orginizations in the future.UNQUOTE

Well, Dave I for one just wish you would do that. Put up or shut up because you have always made a lot of unproved accusations but don't seem to follow them up with hard evidence. And I mean hard evidence, not just your personal interpretation of events that you see as related in your feud with Microgaming.

Your comments and slurs regarding eCOGRA are a case in point. Are you really seriously suggesting that a third party inspection group of international repute like PwC would take confidential information from one eCOGRA applicant under inspection and pass it to eCOGRA's CEO? And then that CEO would pass this information on to one of their competitors?

Where is the proof on your emphatic claim that:

"Ecogra and its agenda is 70% controlled by Moshal himself. Andrew Beveridge is simply one of his puppets." This totally discounts the executive control of internationally respected gambling personalities on the Board to whom Beveridge as a professional manager reports.

"eCogra was the brainstorm idea of Microgaming founder Martin Moshal. He made the decision to form a coalition between himself and CON. This is the real truth. The truth everyone is so afraid to say." Again, just a statement and no evidence. Do you not think the very independent, talented and successful John Anderson who founded and heads up CON might be a prime mover in the eCOGRA initiative simply because he has the long vision to see that the potential for everyone involved in this industry from the player on down will be stunted if we continue in the unregulated manner that has been a feature of this business so far. And why would everyone be "afraid to say"?

"Only Microgaming casinos have thus far received the prestigious eCogra seal of approval." True...so far. You use this to incorrectly draw the conclusion that eCOGRA is not independent, again ignoring the fact that control over the Seal system rests with the independent directors of eCOGRA and not its founding funders. I suggest you watch this space and then be prepared eat your words, because there is already evidence that eCOGRA is an open shop and has repeatedly stated (most recently yesterday with a release about their general briefing at GIGSE) that all providers and casinos that meet their criteria and commit to regulation are welcome.

"NO CASINOS from any other software developer have yet been approved." Again, watch this space. And you draw the false conclusion that this is because eCOGRA is an exclusive MGS club, totally ignoring the more obvious possibility that the casinos in the first two tranches happened to be the first to apply and the first to pass the rigorous inspections.

"However, expect these other companies to be very skeptical of eCogra's so-called "independence", since they are afraid that after the in-house inspection is completed, Beveridge will pass on thier trade secrets directly to Moshal." See above - do you really believe that Beveridge as a professional manager or PwC as the inspection third party would be involved in this sort of unethical and actionable activity? Another of your way out there scenarios.

[jetset]

ECOGRA TO BRIEF SOFTWARE PROVIDERS

GIGSE an opportunity to find out about Seals and regulation

Software providers committed to player protection and better credibility for the industry are invited to attend a special briefing during the upcoming GIGSE conference in Toronto.

Executives from eCOGRA (eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance) will be presenting a detailed briefing on the process involved in achieving Seal status, which has already been awarded to 41 quality online casinos. The briefing will include the signing-up process, costs, review procedures, the benefits of affiliation and a question and answer session.

The presentation will be made by eCOGRA CEO Andrew Beveridge and will take place in the Grenadier Room at the Intercontinental Toronto Centre at 1.00pm on Monday May 17, 2004.

"Our initiative to improve safety and efficiency in the industry is open to all software providers and casino operators with the requisite commitment", says Beveridge. "eCOGRA is a sincere, strongly funded and independent body focused on guiding online players to genuinely safe and efficient casinos operating to carefully developed and enforced standards.

"Our goal is to introduce sensible self-imposed regulation that will improve business by attracting to our approved casinos a bigger percentage of gamblers tired of questionable practices and inept operational conduct elsewhere".

The purpose of the reception is to provide interested parties with an overview of the objectives and progress of the organisation, and to encourage more software providers to apply for eCOGRA membership resulting in additional reputable casinos earning the Seal.

[GrandMaster]

Executives from eCOGRA (eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance) will be presenting a detailed briefing on the process involved in achieving Seal status, which has already been awarded to 41 quality online casinos. The briefing will include the signing-up process, costs, review procedures, the benefits of affiliation and a question and answer session.

"Our goal is to introduce sensible self-imposed regulation that will improve business by attracting to our approved casinos a bigger percentage of gamblers tired of questionable practices and inept operational conduct elsewhere".

It sounds like that casinos are allowed to learn about the procedures, so the arguments put forward justifying secrecy are not valid, it is just us stupid players who are kept in the dark.

The second paragraph seems to imply that ecogra is more of a marketing trick for casinos than an organisation genuinely interested in helping players. The approved casinos display the "ecogra players seal of approval", which might be mistake for something awarded by players, whereas there is no player involvement at any point in the process.

The dispute resolution service is useful, but otherwise I have not seen a convincing argument why I should trust the "approved" casinos more than any others.