CASSAVA CASINOS AWARDED eCOGRA SEALS

[dominique]

I nominate caruso as transparency advocate for players.

I second that.

[jpm]

Does that mean he'd be like the invisible man?

[GrandMaster]

It unfortunately creates something of a stalemate in this exchange, because eCOGRA and its not inexperienced or disreputable members are clearly comfortable that the PwC arrangement provides a satisfactory level of games fairness.

However reputable and good they are, they are not infallible. Judging by their biographies, they don't have mathematical training, so a mistake in the definition of game fairness got past them. I found it and it will be fixed, so I have had to shelve my plans for ecogra compliant craps with increased house edge.

TGTR is not open to scrutiny, so if there is a mistake in it, it may not be found.

[caruso]

LOL, I think GM's nomination contained the tiniest pinch of salt, so I don't forsee an onset of invisibility for the time being at least. And in case I'm in error regarding the salt content, I have to say I possess neither the time nor the tidy mind for such a lofty task. However, I WOULD be happy to get together a summary, reasonably representative of the general concerns expressed, and Email it to the appropriate person, if Jetset can provide me with a name and an Email address. I would also happily post the person's answer, assuming he were in agreement. That wouldn't be a bad compromise.

From your responses to my questions above, Caruso I believe it is fair to say that your opposition to eCOGRA is not the concept, funding, regulations or infrastructure, but is focused on the transparency or rather lack thereof of the PwC software verification system. Your contention is that there is insufficient information available for you to say one way or another that it is inherently good or bad, and this invalidates the entire initiative.

That's about it. A more accurate wording would be: "Your contention is that since neither the data nor the processes involved in collecting it are available for public scrutiny, this leaves us being required to accept effectively uncorroboratable statements on faith and a such invalidates the entire initiative". And yes, I agree on the stalemate remark. Honestly, I never saw any other likely result. They were never going to open these things up - and I make no apology for drawing my own conclusions as to why.

Good points from GM about the inadequacy of the NGC comparison. It's quite tricky to rig a dealt blackjack game, at least in Modern Vegas.

[Clayman]

The Nevada Gaming Commission has quite detailed publicly available documents on casino procedures, internal audit standards and slot machine specifications.

Yes, quite detailed procedures of what an auditor is supposed to do but how do we know they are actually competently done? Just because an auditor checks the right block does not mean he did the work.

And, even if they are, you'll never know when you're being dealt seconds in a pitch game anyway. Or that the shoe is legit, or whether the dealer dropped a card in the wastebasket, or whether the random draw for a car is fixed.

Notwithstanding, the more detail provided about TGTR, the better. If, a year from now, there is no more detail than we currently seem to have, I'll be more than a little disappointed.

[Clayman]

A more accurate wording would be: "Your contention is that since neither the data nor the processes involved in collecting it are available for public scrutiny, this leaves us being required to accept effectively uncorroboratable statements on faith and a such invalidates the entire initiative".

Why didn't you feel this way the day after True Gambler released his results? On that day, you had complete faith in every erroneous conclusion he put forth stating "This is indeed the UNBELIEVEABLE conclusion:... Microgaming is rigged. Now it's official."

People believe what they want to and that's OK.

[jpm]

Yes, quite detailed procedures of what an auditor is supposed to do but how do we know they are actually competently done? Just because an auditor checks the right block does not mean he did the work.

And, even if they are, you'll never know when you're being dealt seconds in a pitch game anyway. Or that the shoe is legit, or whether the dealer dropped a card in the wastebasket, or whether the random draw for a car is fixed.

Clayman, using this logic, how could we trust ANYONE who certifies the games are fair, whether their methodology is fully disclosed or not? If you doubt everyone's audits, then no certification, no matter how detailed or transparent, would be acceptable.

[Clayman]

Clayman, using this logic, how could we trust ANYONE who certifies the games are fair, whether their methodology is fully disclosed or not? If you doubt everyone's audits, then no certification, no matter how detailed or transparent, would be acceptable.

Exactly. We can't. Cheating occurs every day in Nevada casinos but I never think I'm being cheated when I'm there. Even if one believes every audit, it would only prove the games were possibly fair then but not, necessarily, now.
My point is that, ultimately, we choose to believe what we want when we play tomorrow. We will never have absolute certainty, whether it's a Big 8 accounting firm auditing Raytheon's books or whether any software provider is fair. Shareholders suing auditors is par for the course and proves nothing. I used to work for a multi-national conglomerate with $2 billion in sales that ended up on the cover of Business Week magazine before we filed bankrupcty, all with financials certified by auditors. Of course they were sued and deservedly so. But I choose to believe these are the exceptions to the rule.
Do you think the money in our checking accounts is real? Only if we all don't try to get green cash tomorrow at 9 AM.
It's tough enough just convincing everyone as to whether Neteller has a legitimate random draw or not, let alone that on-line gambling experience is fair. Regrettably, we don't live in a perfect world.

But we try to get as close as we can and that's a good thing.

I do think eCogra can get closer than they are. And, for now, I think, and hope, they eventually will. If not, I'll most likely continue to believe anyway chances are good I'm getting a fair game in Vegas and on the Internet despite also knowing it's possible I'm not.

[jetset]

I nominate caruso as transparency advocate for players.

From this I take it that Grandmaster has the same attitude to eCOGRA that Caruso has - if you can be personally comfortable with the software verification you have no other serious beefs with eCOGRA.

However, I think you need a little more organisation of effort than simply making ad hoc nominations on a single message board if you are to have credibility.

There are hundreds of players (and I include all genuinely concerned and interested posters in that) on the leading message boards, and if you can organise yourselves so as to marshal a strong representation from this audience, an open dialogue with eCOGRA may be the most powerful and constructive thing you have done thus far....and have the best chance for success.

It may require Grandmaster, Eek, Cipher, DaveR, DirkD or one of Caruso's other supporters to work those boards from which Caruso is excluded but that should not present too great a problem.

Bethug - with respect, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Taking your attitude of total opposition to eCOGRA is not going to make this initiative go away and it certainly will not take this debate further forward imo.

"And yes, I agree on the stalemate remark. Honestly, I never saw any other likely result. They were never going to open these things up - and I make no apology for drawing my own conclusions as to why."

Caruso, you may well impose your own personal views and conclusions on this issue, but that is all they remain and that does not make your opinion fact.

IMO, this is not a promising way to kickstart an initiative that shows eCOGRA you speak for a significant number of people who share your views to the extent that they should consider an approach more in line with your thinking.

This could entail expense and a significant policy shift from their obvious present comfort level with the professional integrity and honesty of a major third party service provider, and the level of support for your suggestions would definitely be a consideration.

We all have busy lives, but many people in this industry make space for voluntary causes in which they strongly believe.

Your personal views and position are well established, but in the present impasse I am suggesting the more constructive course of you and your supporters taking the time and trouble to assess public opinion on eCOGRA and then act on it.

If this public opinion conforms to your views then taking the issue to a more productive level than hostile message board posts would be a valuable move forward.

[jetset]

However reputable and good they are, they are not infallible. Judging by their biographies, they don't have mathematical training, so a mistake in the definition of game fairness got past them. I found it and it will be fixed, so I have had to shelve my plans for ecogra compliant craps with increased house edge.

TGTR is not open to scrutiny, so if there is a mistake in it, it may not be found.

This, and for reasons of independent conduct is clearly why eCOGRA has outsourced software verification, inspection and technical monitoring to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, who apparently do have the requisite professional capabilities. But this is a circular argument and takes us no further forward.