eCOGRA interview at Winneronline

[jetset]

Interview on eCOGRA now up at Winneronline...


10 Minutes With...Andrew Beveridge from eCOGRA
by Max Drayman, WINNERonline.com
9 June, 2004



Max Drayman: Tell us a little about your background and your role within eCOGRA.

Andrew Beveridge: I assumed the role of CEO on a full-time basis in October 2002. I initially embarked on a career in investment banking in London and Hong Kong, having qualified as a Chartered Accountant and complimented this with an MBA.....

And the rest can be read here :
http://www.winneronline.com/articles...rom-ecogra.htm

[GrandMaster]

Of course, Gamblegirl immediately spotted the PwC-TGTR issue.

[jpm]

The testing methodologies adopted by the audit firms are left to the audit firm's discretion, and the Board does not dictate what tests should be adopted and the degree of testing. This kind of information is proprietary to the audit firms - it is at their discretion whether or not they wish to make this information public.

It seems to me that this says it is NOT eCOGRA who is keeping the methodology secret, its actually the accounting firms. Looks like all the eCOGRA bashing will have to shift to auditor bashing now for keeping things confidential.

[GrandMaster]

Originally Posted by jpm

It seems to me that this says it is NOT eCOGRA who is keeping the methodology secret, its actually the accounting firms. Looks like all the eCOGRA bashing will have to shift to auditor bashing now for keeping things confidential.

Ecogra could have insisted on the methodology being public, and if PwC did not like this, some other firm could have done the job instead.

[jpm]

But that doesn't change the fact that eCOGRA is not the one keeping the information private. The decision was not made by them, so blame the auditors for the secrecy, not eCOGRA.

[caruso]

That's a quite nonsensical argument. The "fair gaming" seal is issued by Ecogra. It makes no difference who they pass this or that task over to, everything is done under their authorization and the responsibility is theirs. I offer a food product, some component of which may be damaging to the health. That particular component I therefore shovel off to someone else to manufacture so that when my customers say "please give us details of component X so that we can assess the danger level" I can come back with "oooh, very sorry, Company Y manufactures that, and they refuse to issue details, so you'll have to take their word for it. It's not my fault if you die."

Who is accountable? I am, of course. It's my product, my responsibility and the lawsuits will be faced by me. No customer would by that BS line of argument.

The information is private because it suits Ecogra that it be private. Nobody forced them to include a software "guarentee" in their "seal"; they chose to include it because it suited them, and they chose a auditor they knew would insist on keeping everything under wraps because THAT suited them - because, as we know, their is no software audit. All we have is PWC doing what they always did - rubber stamping figures handed over by Microgaming and gleefully banking the bucks.

Good questioning from Draymann, I thought he'd fudge it. Kudos to him for getting confirmation of what we knew anyway.

[jetset]

Living up to your promise to post the same old stuff every time the eCOGRA name comes up, I see Caruso.

And your resentment against Max Drayman resulting from your deliberate confrontation with him at WOL on an unrelated matter is in evidence here too. FTR imo he asked legitimate questions in a professional manner here, as any unbiased reader of the interview can see for him or herself.

Once again, you make stunningly irresponsible, inaccurate and assumptive statements like this:

"The information is private because it suits Ecogra that it be private. Nobody forced them to include a software "guarentee" in their "seal"; they chose to include it because it suited them, and they chose a auditor they knew would insist on keeping everything under wraps because THAT suited them - because, as we know, their is no software audit. All we have is PWC doing what they always did - rubber stamping figures handed over by Microgaming and gleefully banking the bucks."

What factual evidence can you produce that justifies such a statement? You are back to unfounded allegations like "...there is no process, there is no data" with the comcomitant implication that both eCOGRA and PwC (and presumably Microgaming and CON too judging by the above statement) are maliciously fraudulent, and that is simply neither fair or true.

And your analogy is out of context.

Regardless of whether you, personally feel that the interview covers "...what we knew anyway" it is informative and useful for those who have not followed eCOGRA's progress in player protective regulation as closely as yourself. Or dismissed it from the outset.

Read the interview again, and you will see that eCOGRA and its not inconsequential members does not share your personal problem with confidence in PwC's ability to produce what it claims for its proved testing process as a responsible, professional and expert organisation.

They clearly do not agree with your view that a third party tester's refusal to open up its proprietary testing system invalidates the eCOGRA initiative in its entirety.

But you know all that already, and it has been debated extensively elsewhere on Casinomeister. Once again you offer nothing here that is useful.

[caruso]

"Living up to your promise to post the same old stuff every time the eCOGRA name comes up, I see Caruso."

Yes, posting the same facts about this fit-up "verification" job. While they remain valid, will continue to do same.

"FTR imo he asked legitimate questions in a professional manner here, as any unbiased reader of the interview can see for him or herself."

Do you actually read anything I write, or do you just see I responded, post and hope for the best? I said "Good questioning from Draymann". Necessary translation for Jetset: "I thought it was conducted well."

(Me) The information is private because it suits Ecogra that it be private...All we have is PWC doing what they always did - rubber stamping figures handed over by Microgaming and gleefully banking the bucks.

"What factual evidence can you produce that justifies such a statement?"

Duuh, the fact that it's all done in private?

"Read the interview again, and you will see that eCOGRA and its not inconsequential members does not share your personal problem with confidence in PwC's ability to produce what it claims for its proved testing process as a responsible, professional and expert organisation."

Oh well, that's that sorted. The corrupt endorsing the corrupt. Must be true then. LOL.

"And your analogy is out of context."

LOL. Jet, an analogy is always out of context. That's why it's an analogy - it seeks to clarify / explain a situation by way of a different one. Look up "analogy" in a dictionary sometime.

Necessary summary for Jetset: Good questioning by Draymann - I didn't expect him to raise the player concern matters. Expected responses from Ecogra, but the confirmation that all "validation" matters are to be kept strictly under wraps for reasons of the total lack of any actual EXISTENCE of said matters was useful.

[jpm]

Originally Posted by caruso

That's a quite nonsensical argument. The "fair gaming" seal is issued by Ecogra. It makes no difference who they pass this or that task over to, everything is done under their authorization and the responsibility is theirs. I offer a food product, some component of which may be damaging to the health. That particular component I therefore shovel off to someone else to manufacture so that when my customers say "please give us details of component X so that we can assess the danger level" I can come back with "oooh, very sorry, Company Y manufactures that, and they refuse to issue details, so you'll have to take their word for it. It's not my fault if you die."

This is not a good analogy since there are government regulators who require such things to be disclosed by federal (or similar outside the US) regulations when it involves food or drugs, etc. and we are dealing with an unregulated industry. A better analogy would be something like H&R Block saying they certify your returns will pass an audit, and they will cover the costs if the returns they prepared and certified are audited. But they don't know the method the IRS will use to decide if they are going to audit your returns, since the IRS won't disclose them all.

[caruso]

That's one heck of a nit-pick, JPM. OK, for the sake of argument let's assume a similar level of unregulation. Analogies aren't generally governed by US regulations - the purpose is to make a point with the aid of an analogious situation, not be accurate on all matters of law.

I offer a food product ***Ecogra***, some component of which may be damaging to the health***software validation, which, assuming false, is obviously potentially damaging to the financial health***. That particular component I therefore shovel off to someone else to manufacture ***PWC***so that when my customers say "please give us details of component X ***software validation***so that we can assess the danger level" I can come back with "oooh, very sorry, Company Y ***PWC***manufactures that, and they refuse to issue details, so you'll have to take their word for it. It's not my fault if you die***get cheated***."

Hope that's clarified. But I think you're nit-picking for the sake of it - the point is clear enough: the product is mine and I alone am responsible for all the component parts. To suggest that I am NOT responsible for the misfunction of one part in particular because I was not privvy to its manufacture is ridiculous.