CASSAVA CASINOS AWARDED eCOGRA SEALS

[bethug]

all i can say caurso is *preach* on

[jetset]

Typically, you not only mangle the truth on eCOGRA in your continued attacks on this sincere regulatory body, but need to capitalise or figuratively raise your voice again, Caruso possibly assuming that the noise level will make your argument more convincing.

And you assume with customary but misplaced over-confidence that you have widespread support for your admitted tactic of trashing the rapidly growing collection of casinos committed to better service on the Internet through practical regulation. What I see are the same few posters rising to support your steadily eroding contention that this is not a genuine effort to improve already pretty respectable casinos.

Once again I searched your post for something constructive, but found nothing so it seems that you still offer only the same suspicion and negativity toward something that offers real benefits to players. And I believe you are in the minority in doing so, because this is something the industry needs and eCOGRA is steadily and efficiently making available.

These attacks of yours are repetitive and take nothing but your ego forward, but let's try another probably wasted investment of time to look at the real facts devoid of your prejudices:

1) There has been no lack of transparency on the initial funding of eCOGRA - it came jointly from the biggest casino operators on the internet Cassava, and from one of the top software providers, Microgaming. Both companies have pretty impressive reputations in terms of their professional approach to business and cannot be simply dismissed as undertaking a shallow ( presumably very expensive) "PR stunt" for all your speculation to the contrary.

Regulation is one of the main business drives in this industry at present - confirmed repeatedly by speakers at GIGSE this year and that should illustrate that CON and MGS are ahead of the game since the eCOGRA regulatory initiative is now two years forward. There is nothing sinister in such a move - it's a win-win because by introducing enforced and genuine regulations casinos give better service, improve performance, earn more jurisdictional respect and consequently attract more business. For the player there's a better, safer gambling experience, prompt payouts and a responsive and independent dispute resolution process which even you admit is working effectively despite first decrying it.

2) You made much of the fact that the first two tranches of casinos awarded the seal were from Microgaming, implying in your posts that this was an exclusive MGS marketing scam. That has been proved false by the announcement of the CON awards. There will, I am confident be further software providers on board which will continue to erode your position on this point.

3) You accused the eCOGRA seal inspection and award system of being nothing more than a tool for the funding founders instead of the independently directed third party process that it really is, deliberately downplaying the internationally respected and fiercely independent directors Hirst, Catania and Galston who the founders insisted from the outset control this and the monitoring and dispute processes to ensure true independence.

These same directors consulted experts internationally in setting the wide ranging regulations at high standards which you have repeatedly shrugged off as of no value despite their considered and practical player-sensitive construction. Next month eCOGRA will be presenting these regulations to a gathering of jurisdictional bodies interested in comparative exchanges on real and consistent regulation.

4) In your increasingly desperate efforts to denigrate eCOGRA you recently combed through their site disregarding the transparency and detail that you found there before finally pouncing on the semantic issue of the Players/Players' seal wording on which to beat up on the organisation without justification.

5) You presumably understand (I am not sure if you do from your latest diatribes) that software providers pay membership fees to eCOGRA whilst casinos that apply for the Seal pay the third party Seal professional inspection fees levied by PwC?

6) I believe that the argument on which you have received some support is that surrounding the TGTR, which you have contrived to present as a lack of transparency and therefore dishonesty. PwC as the independent third party for testing and inspection has declined to disclose the proprietary techniques and software involved in their system and there have been some good arguments for and against that standpoint. But the fact remains that despite your repeated accusations of secrecy and collusion (extending yesterday even to supporting the bringing into this debate unrelated and settled litigation against PwC in the States) you are not in a position to show that the Total Gaming Transaction Review system is anything but the reliable and comprehensive system for monitoring software that PwC as a reputable multi national company of significance claim it is.

You and a few others will no doubt obdurately continue to attempt to trash eCOGRA, but my feeling is that events have pretty much already proved you wrong and moved on. This initiative is making solid progress and showing in a practical way that it is a system of regulation that can work to the benefit of everyone but the crooks and thieves at the lower end of the industry. It may even help to bridge the gap between casino and player, although that will clearly only apply to those entities with the foresight and ability to comply with the requirements.

Finally Caruso I suggest you read the US Raytheon item posted by Bethug again before throwing words like "corruption" around in relation to a respectable company...I don't believe the release said anything of the sort.

[rowmare]

Caruso, I really am not "compromised". I have the ability to see both sides of things, and the integrity not to promote disreputable casinos. I resent deeply that you have put my integity in question.

I am neither for nor against eCOGRA. Like a lot of us, I am waiting for the proof in the pudding, so to speak. I don't know enough about eCOGRA to make any judgement whatsoever.

I'm just piping up in these threads because overt negativity is a pet peeve of mine when it goes beyond playing the devil's advocate. It annoys the hell outta me.

As for the fact that the casinos being tested by eCOGRA are paying them for it, it's pretty much the way almost everything is done. Pilots pay to be tested. Drivers pay to be tested.

People/companies who are audited pay for it - does that necessarily mean the audit is corrupt or biased?

That argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. It really doesn't.

It is important to be cautious in these matters, and nay-sayers play an important role. I do trust Jetset's opinion, though. Jetset has credibility.

Anyway, Caruso, lets not get into personal assaults over this stuff. There are far more important things to get our shit in a knot about.

I am not compromised. I think for myself and if I don't like something about any casino - particularly how they deal with players, etc., they won't be on my pages. It's just that simple.

[caruso]

Originally Posted by rowmare

I resent deeply that you have put my integity in question.

I'm saying that the financial relationship is compromising. If I ask a question about Crazy Vegas and you answer, do think that knowledge of the fact that you're an affiliate and you carry a banner for Crazy Vegas high on your MG listings is potentially relevant to my judging your answer? Of course it is. There's a fine line between being trustworthy and just plain stupid and naive.

Why have you removed your site from your signature? I appreciate your honesty in carrying it in the first place, but it does bring to the fore the whole question of deceptive postings by affiliates (in general and not aimed at you specifically); there's one affiliate at WOL who's NEVER revealed her web site. Some secretive shit, huh?

Moving along to Jetset's diatribe...

[spearmaster]

If I ask a question about Crazy Vegas and you answer, do think that knowledge of the fact that you're an affiliate and you carry a banner for Crazy Vegas high on your MG listings is potentially relevant to my judging your answer?

It may be relevant to you but that does not under any circumstances give you any right to call her position compromised.

Got2Bet does exactly the same thing. But did it ever occur to you that we will only promote casinos that we believe are going to provide the player a fair and enjoyable experience? If I put up hundreds of banners for everything from Casino Bar to 32Red, you might then be able to make some sort of claim that the bottom line is the determinant factor.

But that is not the case for me anyhow, as you well know, and to imply that Rowmare is automatically compromised simply because she's got a banner on her site simply does not hold water.

Come up with some better reasoning and people might actually listen - unless you're trying to snow some of the relative newbies in here. I definitely agree with you on the wording of the seal - but I also think that what Jetset is saying is true in that you're just looking for a reason to stir the pot.

Whether or not you like eCOGRA, I still think their objectives are worthwhile and I am willing to give them a chance to grow - but that does not mean that I will approve of everything they do, not by a long shot.

Such is life. I personally think your efforts could be turned to something a lot more useful than trying to denigrate an organization - a new one at that, and with a lot of respected firepower. You can come in here and complain all you like but if it's not constructive, no one will care.

[caruso]

Originally Posted by jetset

Typically, you not only mangle the truth on eCOGRA in your continued attacks on this sincere regulatory body...possibly assuming that the noise level will make your argument more convincing.

No can do. I made two statements regarding the obvious problem with investing the software side Ecogra with any credibility. You have now answered those questions with the following two statements:

Funding: "There has been no lack of transparency on the initial funding of eCOGRA - it came jointly from the biggest casino operators on the internet Cassava, and from one of the top software providers, Microgaming."

I know where the funding comes from, as you know. And this is NOT the "lack of transparancy" issue - that relates to the software verification. The fact that the financial relationship between Ecogra and the casinos is in the open does not make it less probelematic. Bought verification is fake verification.

And...

Software verification: "PwC as the independent third party for testing and inspection has declined to disclose the proprietary techniques and software involved in their system"

Thank you for that. Now we know that NOTHING will EVER be disclosed about either the data or the collection process. We have to "trust" PWC to tell us the truth.

OK, Jetset. No problem. At least that matter is now cleared up. There is NO software "verification".

And you assume with customary but misplaced over-confidence that you have widespread support...What I see are the same few posters rising to support your steadily eroding contention that this is not a genuine effort to improve already pretty respectable casinos...And I believe you are in the minority in doing so.

Careful with those assumptions. I've never claimed "widespread support" across the board, and of course I'm in the minority. Who reads the boards? 15% of the gambling public? And how many of THEM have their heads up their arses or their hands in the casino cash register?

But take a look for a moment at what the "minority" consists of: Me, Dave, Dirk, Cipher, Grandmaster, Eek and others. None of these people are exactly gullible fools, and they've been around. (There a plenty, but PLENTY, more such people who read the boards and hold identical opinions but who simply chose not to comment.) Yes, it's a minority. It's a pretty strong one, however. And who has expressed opposing views? You (obviously), Bryan (top rank affiliate), Rowmare (affiliate), Dominique (affiliate) etc...are you getting the picture? There's not a lot of player confidence in this thing, is there? Why not? Because of those unpleasant realities I KEEP reiterating and which you KEEP attempting to dismiss as "noise", "negativity", etc ad inf. It doesn't wash. My objections are valid and people agree with me. The people who COUNT, the PLAYERS - not those with their fingers in the till.

Once again I searched your post for something constructive, but found nothing...These attacks of yours are repetitive and take nothing but your ego forward, but let's try another...look at the real facts devoid of your prejudices

My posts are entirely constructive. I've explained what they need for the exercise to be more than meaningful rather than meaningless. That they choose to NOT do so is not my problem! Why am I "prejudiced" because I want transparancy? I'm "prejudiced" against bullshit, I'll grant you that.

For the player there's a better, safer gambling experience, prompt payouts and a responsive and independent dispute resolution process.

I agree with all that other than any suggestion that the software verification claim is anything more than meaningless.

You made much of the fact that the first two tranches of casinos awarded the seal were from Microgaming, implying in your posts that this was an exclusive MGS marketing scam.

No, that wasn't me - I think Dirk mentioned that. I don't care if it's a MG monopoly or all casinos out there. The only matter of any relevance is the transparancy of the software verification.

In your increasingly desperate efforts to denigrate eCOGRA you recently combed through their site disregarding the transparency and detail that you found there before finally pouncing on the semantic issue of the Players/Players' seal wording on which to beat up on the organisation without justification.

You're going insane. How are you privvy to my thought processes and when I do what and where? I looked at the Ecogra seal itself, on one of the Fortune Lounge casinos , and commented on the very much NOT "semantic" issue. It's misleading. And for the record, Got2Bet seems in agreement with that. If anyone is "desperate", it's not me. My postings are clear and calculated on this matter. Take a look at yours.

You and a few others will no doubt obdurately continue to attempt to trash eCOGRA, but my feeling is that events have pretty much already proved you wrong and moved on.

Yes, myself and a few others will no doubt continue to call you and your fellows to task on the SAME matters every time you post the "More Coveted Ecogra Seals Awarded!!!!!!!" ads. I don't, and I doubt they do either, make any apology for continually calling the software verification aspect of this for the sham it is, for the stated reasons.

[caruso]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

It may be relevant to you but that does not under any circumstances give you any right to call her position compromised.

"Compromised" may be the wrong word. "Biased"?

If I'm chosing to vote Democrat or Republican, and the only facts / opinions I'm exposed to are from a Democrat candidate, which way am I most likely to vote?

If a poster asks about, say, VPL, and you answered, would you mention the discourteous Email recently sent? If I answered, would it be mentioned? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but you inevitably have a different perspective.

What's your opinion of the software validation process? Is the fact that we will never be privvy to ANYTHING not a prblem to you, particularly given your OCA stance? Do you trust PWC so totally? I don't, and I stand by my contention that lack of transparancy effectively invalidates the exercise. And I think people DO listen.

[DeMango]

"We have tested joeblowcasino and their European Blackjack pays out 99.59%, very slightly less than expected but within the bounds of fairness...." This is what we the players EXPECT. Untill then Caruso - 1, Jetset - 0. I'm not sure why all can't understand this. Who cares if a casino "pays" if it will not need to??????

DeMango

[rowmare]

If an affiliate carries a banner high on his/her website, could that not simply mean that they believe the casino to be a respectable, well run organization?

If that makes one biased - to have a high opinion of a casion - then you are right, Caruso, I believe I just may be biased.

To make you happy, I put my url back on my signature. I removed it when it occurred to me that it might be considered spaming the forum.

[spearmaster]

If a poster asks about, say, VPL, and you answered, would you mention the discourteous Email recently sent? If I answered, would it be mentioned? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but you inevitably have a different perspective.

Different in that I am able to see both sides of the coin - for sure. Similar in that I see the player's side of things, not least because I am a player myself, but also because I see various comments and complaints from all sorts of players.

The email itself was not particularly appealing, that's for sure - but I have also learned that people from different places, who grew up under different circumstances, don't always see things the same way. Some people may have read the email as a nasty one; others as just matter-of-fact.

What's your opinion of the software validation process? Is the fact that we will never be privvy to ANYTHING not a prblem to you, particularly given your OCA stance? Do you trust PWC so totally? I don't, and I stand by my contention that lack of transparancy effectively invalidates the exercise. And I think people DO listen.

I do not have a fully-formed opinion at this stage. Yes, I like to be privy to as much as possible - I would like to know what Dubya does at 7 in the evening too, but these things aren't always made public.

My OCA stance has more to do with the untried, unknown methods of the system which was applied in gathering data. It has nothing to do with eCOGRA whatsoever, insofar as that eCOGRA does not gather the same sort of data and attempt to validate the findings.

Do I trust PWC? No comment.

Transparency? The more, the better - no doubt about it. I don't, however, believe that eCOGRA is trying to be opaque about its methods, I don't believe that it is approving every applicant who has paid money to itself or to PWC for undergoing the Seal approval process, and I don't believe that eCOGRA has any hidden objectives.

Does this invalidate the exercise?

The answer to that depends on what you think the exercise is. If it is to prove that the results which are obtained from a sample of plays generated by a particular software is fair, then I would say that this is not the exercise being undertaken.

If it is to prove that eCOGRA is biased, then I would disagree.

If it is to show that eCOGRA is not transparent, I think that's a matter of personal judgement.

If it is to show that all applicants can "buy" certification, I disagree.

I think what needs to be done is for eCOGRA to clearly state, or perhaps convince, players of its stated objectives. And players must not look to eCOGRA as the cure-all, end-all, for it is not. Once the players understand what eCOGRA is about, I think most of this discussion will be moot.

For now, my position is the same as it has been from day one - noncommittal. But I would certainly give an organization with recognized, respected individuals leading the way more leeway than some unknown with great ideas but apparently unwilling to take a few extra steps to establish credibility.