Lake Palace 'do an Omni' - Ecogra says casino is right to do so

[Clayman]

How would you see the results being used, and why not send this suggestion on to the eCOGRA CEO?

Thanks for the simple straight-forward suggestion I wouln't have thought of

I just see it as a statistical check versus the theoretical HA of any given game. I'd love to see such a standard eventually replace, or at least supplement, that mostly-meaningless "pay-out" stat that contains the effects of bet-size variance. All they really would have to do is pretend each hand was played for $1. And, to present such data in $25 or $100 increments of bet ranges, might help alleviate the "big bet" theories.

Still, we wouldn't know the effect of incorrect play but I feel it would be a better measuring stick than what is currently presented.

OK back on topic.

[amandajm]

If you can't find the answers to your questions on their site or for that matter in the archives here I suggest you email info@ecogra.org and ask Andrew Beveridge, the CEO - he's a very approachable guy.

But I'm surprised you haven't asked these questions before - they've been around since 2002.

BTW if I recall correctly the Seal casinos now number 51.

It stands to reason the guy will make the right noises. I would rather ask you and anyone else a question here in public. That is what I do.
You told me to do my homework aside from other comments.

Ecogra's birth was partly funded by Microgaming.
The whole Ecogra thing stands on the shoulders of the TGTR.
The TGTR was created by Microgaming.

Aside Grief Club and CON, no others aside Microgaming firms have the Ecogra seal.
Grief Club and Con are Cassava powered.
Cassava partly funded the birth of Ecogra.

The only place on the net worthy of being called "TGTR INFO" is the Ecogra Q&A and your report here via infopowa. Even a casino reproduces your work as a report. Nothing on the MICRO site for the public about TGTR.

There are no player representatives that I know of regarding Ecogra.

Tex Rees points people to this very board and WOL and G2B too ~ where I will ask my questions and concerns.

I was there from the start and I respect that you are convinced by these guys even though there is no player rep. Even though the player advocate has "just got it" after being told the score.

I reserve my right to be an extremist or even stand-offish and weary type of person where ecogra, micro and the tgtr are concerned..

I hope to be suitably impressed 1 day..

[Clayman]

I also wonder how much the individual casino can affect the hold. Is the hold the same no matter which casino is player?

I wonder too. I found it somewhat disturbing when virtualted said "On slots we can set the machine in basically the same way. Every machine is different, but can change the % from like 97% to 94%." I just don't like the idea of playing a game on Monday and the next day knowing it might be paying 3+% less than it did yesterday. Guess one is playing slots just choosing which slot machine to play

So, even if they were to list pay-outs on a slot-by-slot basis, it would likely be meaningless at best and deceptive at worst as they say "pays 97%" and then change it down to 94% the next day.

Of course that was RTG and this is Micro.

[jetset]

QUOTE Thanks for the simple straight-forward suggestion I wouln't have thought of UNQUOTE

I was not being facetious, Clayman. The simple truth is that if you feel you have a constructive suggestion to make you are more likely to develop a practical interaction with the guys actually making things happen at eCOGRA than you are amidst hostile speculation on message boards.

[Clayman]

I was not being facetious, Clayman.

I didn't think you were! My reply was not facetious either. Sometimes the obvious escapes me. So, thanks again for the suggestion. Sincerely.

[caruso]

Did they say on what basis they changed their decision?

Hopefully eCOGRA will choose to enlighten the player community as to why they reversed their original decision.

I also want to know what caused this about-face.

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

[Stanford]

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

I replied above. They changed it based on the basis that the player had accepted an offer and met the terms of that offer. Accordingly, he had to be paid.

Stanford.

[cipher]

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

Without LAKE PALACE and eCOGRA answering these questions, this whole fiasco is tantamount to robbing a bank, getting caught, giving the money back and expecting that everything is honky dorry when it's not. Have a good one.

[jetset]

I think you guys may be trying to find demons where there aren't any.

Stanford's told you what he knows, and as far as I can see the wrong call was made initially. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives, and this is the first dispute on which eCOGRA has made the wrong ruling as far as I am aware.

eCOGRA then showed sensitivity to what the players here and at WOL were saying and re-opened the enquiry, in the end ruling in favour of the player in view of his play within the T&Cs. It seems to me that shows a preparedness to listen to the players.

The player was presumably paid (Dirk?) and a useful precedent has been set in my view. That precedent is that the casino is responsible for it's T&Cs. If a player accepts an offer, plays and sticks to those T&Cs he or she should be paid all monies promised in the promo.

[Stanford]

Without LAKE PALACE and eCOGRA answering these questions, this whole fiasco is tantamount to robbing a bank, getting caught, giving the money back and expecting that everything is honky dorry when it's not. Have a good one.

My analogy is more of rendering a decision, having it appealed and having it reversed. I think the precedent is very importent.

I think what players are missing is a critical statement for the initial behavior. Granted that would be nice, but it is more importent that the "bonus abuse" escape clause was given no weight during the appeal. It was not allowed to override the specific terms of the promotion.

Stanford.