Meeting with Microgaming

[Casinomeister]

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

Yeah - it's also covered on the MGS URL I referred to.

[spiderlegz]

Yeah - it's also covered on the MGS URL I referred to.

Well if they try to play the victim (in reference to Jetsets post) it doesnt take away the fact that they earned millions in rake from the failed rooms.

Consider the fact that the owner of Battlefield (one of the TUSK skins) is owed over a million even if they gave rakeback from 30% up to 60%.

[spiderlegz]

Would have edited my previous post if possible as this is slightly OT.

MGs only reaction to the poker fiascos lately can be found here:
http://thispokerweek.blogspot.com/20...se-desist.html

Thats so low. So microgamingscandal.com doesnt exist anymore. Hopefully they are proud of themselfs.

[vinylweatherman]

This is sad that MG doesnt feel it is worth the trouble for USA players, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I feel that eventually the USA will be able to legally play on line,then they will want us back, they should not give up on us, at least IMO this is. I still do not understand why we can not play new games if we are still able to play all other games (of course not speaking of progressives) I am sorry I just do not get it and quite honestly it makes me a bit pi--ed off, IMO again. Thank you Bryan for all your hard work getting us answers as always you da bomb


pevangel

This is what is so confusing. US players are "not worth the trouble", yet MGS have gone to CONSIDERABLE LENGHTS of "trouble" by rewriting parts of the code SPECIFICALLY to cater for US players, even though this has been for the worse. If it REALLY was a case of "not worth the trouble", the US players would NOT have this bespoke "cut down" casino lobby that has to check IP addresses, reconfigure games to hide them from certain IP addresses, have an appeals department to sort out problems with IP geolocation, etc.

US players would have been able to play EVERYTHING, it being up to the operator, until one day, they would be told they could no longer play, PERIOD! They would then have blocked ALL US accounts based on registration information, and told players to withdraw their funds by a certain date. This would have ensured MGS DIDN'T spend ANY time specifically on US players, other than to issue ONE memo to operators regarding a closure date.

With regard to the "scandal", MGS permitted the MYTH of the player protection "trust fund" by SAYING NOTHING whilst it was perpetuated widely, perhaps thinking that there would NEVER be a case where there would be a call on this non existent fund because player's balances went along with a casino/poker collapse. MGS should have made efforts to squash this myth, and make it clear there was NO such fund, and that players had NO "special protection" in the event of an operator failure. I was "brought up" on this myth, and it DID enhance the credibility of MGS casinos above those from other softwares, where we KNEW for a FACT there was no player protection fund in the event of operator failure.

The other bit of bullshit is the defence put forward by the CEO of MGS, that modern sites use so many different softwares that it would be impossible to work out which "trust fund" was liable if said operator went bust, making it impractical to offer one.
Why is this bullshit? Well, MGS themselves DO NOT ALLOW operators to mix & match software. Look at what happened to Intertops when they tried to have TWO separate casinos attached to their sportsbook and poker site. MGS said NO, and ENFORCED it, this FORCED Intertops to ditch the "green" MGS casino, and even then MGS were not satisfied, they had to ditch Royal Joker too, which they partly did through a corporate "fudge" which still allows them to retain an "interest" in the casino, but not run it.
This means that it IS possible to operate a "trust fund", at least for the specific products, one for Poker, and another for Casino.

MGS ONLY decided to actually speak out about this "trust fund" being a myth when they ran out of delaying tactics after the TUSK collapse. Remember, first of all they said they were waiting for the liquidator to sort out the mess, and recover as much as they could, still giving the impression that there WOULD be a "settlement of last resort" to players if the liquidator was unable to find enough money. Only when this excuse ran out of mileage did MGS take the line "nothing to do with us, we just supply the software", which was then quickly followed by the collapse of Eurolinx.

All MGS have done is to use their corporate might to SILENCE THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE by forcing the closure of a protest website that was agitating for action over the scandal. They have done little to help players who have suffered HUGE losses, nor do they seem to be learning from past mistakes, since it HAPPENED AGAIN at Eurolinx, even though TUSK should have taught them that the systems they had in place were NOT WORKING.


Given that the CEO is now on record as saying "US players are not worth the trouble", this should be read that they WILL be ditched the next time the environment tightens up, which looks like being June 1st.

[cindie7777]

Royal Joker is not ran by Intertops? I did not know this and it would greatly impact me playing there. Intertops took care of me when they didnt have to in regards to those atm cards they were using and I have total faith in them but if Royal Joker is not the same management then I might not be playing there. Any Information would be appreciated. Good Luck to Everyone and Happy Easter Bunny!

[vinylweatherman]

Royal Joker is not ran by Intertops? I did not know this and it would greatly impact me playing there. Intertops took care of me when they didnt have to in regards to those atm cards they were using and I have total faith in them but if Royal Joker is not the same management then I might not be playing there. Any Information would be appreciated. Good Luck to Everyone and Happy Easter Bunny!

It's not quite that simple. There was an argument between MGS and Intertops over their decision to open a second RTG casino. MGS told Intertops they were NOT allowed to have two competing softwares, and would have to choose between keeping the MGS Intertops green casino, and having the Intertops red, but closing the green.

Initially, Intertops opened the RTG red casino to cater to it's US customers who could no longer use the Intertops MGS casino. Far from it being "not worth the trouble", MGS intervened and forced Intertops to choose. Intertops chose the US players, and kept the RTG casino, but closed the MGS Green one.

SOMEHOW, they managed to get Royal Joker past MGS, who certainly DID try to get this one closed too, but Intertops did some kind of company restructuring that allowed Royal Joker to somehow "not be part of Intertops", meaning MGS had to treat it as a different operator.

If you check under accredited, Royal Joker is NOT listed under Intertops, but under "Royal Joker group". The alternate structure is RUMOURED to be that Royal Joker is managed on behalf of Intertops by Jackpot Factory, but is structured and run as a stand alone separate casino.

Whatever they have done, it seems MGS cannot force it to close, leaving Intertops free to directly run the RTG Red casino for the benefit of US players, but also to allow non-US players to continue with the MGS experience.

Before all this, existing customers had a Royal Joker account opened for them, and it was simply a case of replacing the two leading letters of the Intertops casino account number with the two for Royal Joker.

The main reason I didn't continue was that they opened my Royal Joker account in Euros, but the UK does NOT use the Euro (yet), and the exchange fees would wipe out any benefit gained from taking up Royal Joker promotions.

From the point of view of the player, none of this should matter. Royal Joker is accredited, just as is Intertops.

[fatshaft]

MG receives 17,5% of the gross rake. And Im fully aware of the concept of rake. And its a multi-million fiasco, both ways. At TUSK players are owed 5,3 million AUD and at Eurolinx/BetOnBet the amount is higher (99% sure from what I have read, Finns already counting to close a million). There are loads of players who pay tens of thousands of rake per year, so pretty sure that MG received at least a couple of millions in rake from the failed rooms. There are players who earned MG more in rake than what they are owed.

And MG directed the skins to TUSK, even they cant deny it, without even checking in what condition the company was. Same like giving a casino license to Linx when they had been in severe financial problems for months.

And if Ladbrokes or Unibet would go bust players would get their money as they are held in segregated accounts.

Edit: the answers from MG was pretty much what I had expected. Empty words and denying responsibility.

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

Well if they try to play the victim (in reference to Jetsets post) it doesnt take away the fact that they earned millions in rake from the failed rooms.

Consider the fact that the owner of Battlefield (one of the TUSK skins) is owed over a million even if they gave rakeback from 30% up to 60%.

Yeah sorry Bryan, but MGS have sold you a dummy here. This is an awful response to an issue that they know they are (rightfully) getting slammed for all over the net.

Yes they take a small percentage, but of a massive massive amount of rake. I play far from all of my poker on an MGS skin, and I play full ring rather than six max, so rake is slow to build. It's rare I play more than 4 tables, rare I even play that many because there's little full ring action.

But in the last 10 months, on tables I've played on, (and full ring accounts for as little as 1 in 20 or more tables at any given level) which is a tiny fraction of the network overall, there's been over €120,000+ taken off in rake. Peak traffic on MGS is c.4000 players. I play maybe on avergae 3/4 hours per day, 2 tables per day. Yet at peak there are around 700 tables running (much more heads up than FR), and of course an average of another 20 hours per day of play.

The amount of rake they must make is staggering. Don't forget that it's only a few months ago that Ladbrokes could afford to run a million dollar rake race every month. I would be astonished if MGS couldn't have covered the entire TUSK fiasco from just one months earnings.

Regardless of the enormous sums MGS have made from poker (whether they deny it or not), to sign up operators to make them substantial sums of money, then to wash their hands completely of player funds if an operator they allow and introduce to players goes walkabout, is scandalous behaviour in this day and age.

As Spiderzlegz says above, why are players funds not held in a seperate segregated network account, so that sites cannot just go pop in the night? That is a failing on MGS' part, just as much as allowing these skins to operate in the first place, and does nothing to help their case.


Pu it another way, MGS used to have a terrible reputation for something else - locking player accounts, and keeping funds. This wasn't fraudsters we're talking about either, some were people who got in a mess due to MGS' former policy of only allowing one nickname across the whole network, even if you had multiple accounts. It was often a nightmare trying to get your 'pin' that allowed you to re-use your nickname on a new skin, so players often gave up in frustration and simply created a new name on the new skin they were using. Others were simply guys who got caught in the middle of chip dumpers, and were genuine reputable and verifiable players, and had usually been with MGS for some time, that still didn't stop their useless collusion/fraud department from lumping genuine players in with the bad guys.

Seems MGS were all too keen to get involved there and grab funds, but when the situation is reversed, and there's GENUINE fraud being perpetrated AGAINST players, suddenly things are very very different.

[DiamondGeezer]

It seems to me that MGS did score a huge own goal over the poker fiasco and the damage to their reputation must have been far bigger than the sums involved. In the Sportsbetting industry when US facing bookmakers have got into difficulties the industry has done everything possible to honour players balances. The Cris group have bought out a number of failed operations and honoured player balances for example. The industry has always rallied and made an effort to help out players who have lost funds in the reputable books that have failed for whatever reason.

With the poker fiasco the obvious solution whould have been to honour player balances but install some kind of rollover system. Players would be kept on the network, more rake would have got generated and the network as a whole would have benefited from the improved action and liquidity. The extra activity generated would have easily offset the costs when measured over a number of years.

For anyone angered by the MGS treatment of the poker fiasco there is one crumb of comfort - the biggest losers by far seem to have been MGS and it's difficult to see their poker offering ever recovering. Infact that and the software issues with MGS Casino offering must have dented them badly as a brand IMO. I don't think too many players would be surprised if for example Ladbrokes were to change software providers at some point in the future for instance.

I don't really know what Bryan can be expected to do about the poker issues as it is not his field of expertise and all the negociations must have been conducted at the MGS operator level. It's very possible the big operators were the ones blocking a solution and may have put MGS in a very difficult position. But certainly it was the players that suffered and it was very damaging.

[fatshaft]

I don't really know what Bryan can be expected to do about the poker issues as it is not his field of expertise and all the negociations must have been conducted at the MGS operator level. It's very possible the big operators were the ones blocking a solution and may have put MGS in a very difficult position. But certainly it was the players that suffered and it was very damaging.

I do agree with you here, Bryan was in a difficult spot as it isn't as you point out his area of expertise, so easy for MGS to blind side him like they've done.

I don't blame him for that, but it was a chance for MGS to come up with something positive, instead, with the response they've given him, they've shown that they are happy to continue to take the punters for fools.

I thank Bryan for his efforts though.