Why Doesnt E-Cogra offer player's insurance?

[webber286]

As for paying for the insurance.. You are already paying when you make a deposit.

You are paying the casino, not eCOGRA. The casinos do pay eCOGRA for the audit, but not for insuring player claims. If there really is a market for online casino insurance, I'm sure someone would be doing it.

[Casinomeister]

...If there really is a market for online casino insurance, I'm sure someone would be doing it.

Exactly. And that's why no one is doing it. This industry is just about ten years old, and I'm sure within the past ten years it's been kicked around by enough people who have tried to make something like this work. Apparently, there's not a market for it - it's too problematic.

[Petunia]

** Think about it realistically - IF the USA has a legislation against gambling online, then how on earth will any company sellig insurance, make sure that in the event of such claims landing up in court, are FAIR?
1) The court will rule against the casino, PERIOD.
2) THe client will be exposed for 'breaking the law'
3) The company filing the case would have to admid to 'aiding and abiding'.

Those are just three, that I can think of in my tiny little brain. **

[amandajm]

As I thought, the whole point of my questions are missed.

Just a simple factual answer will do to an obviously important question, that should not be left for an idiot like me to ask.

I can't expect to see the source code of the casino software. I don't really want to see reams of data regarding every bet placed, every result passed through the RNG. I would'nt understand it.

The bottom line is with this whole ecogra thing is simply "trust".

# The more they dodge very very important player sensitive issues such as spyware with mere silence.
# The more they offer up badly worded press releases purporting to be "online gaming's regulatory body".
# The more they allow firms like Fortune to not stomp on spam by shutting down deals with the likes of Slickstreet, but stay sealed.
# The more they say nothing when affiliate webmasters have to put up with seriously questionable behaviour, without a word, in fact a wave of the hand to the likes of Spear. Such questionable behaviour in fact, the firms backed down.
# The more they refuse to answer simple questions to one, that they answer to another.
# The more they ask for trust on the back of PWC's good name, but then try to silently remove all mention of said firm from the site.

All means the less trust they gain. What do you supporters really expect one to think? Trust is earned - Ecogra even needed telling that "bonus abuse" by players who abide by "the letter of the promotion" should be paid what they are rightfully owed.

Then you get to wondering whether they are telling the truth about the number crunching process, that we just have to trust their word on.

No need for a reply because there is nothing to say - the above #'s happened and some are still so.
Carry on.

[caruso]

Something is unexplained here: it isn't just Ecogra who've pulled all reference to PriceWaterhouseCooper - it's EVERY online gambling site out there. They all now say "independent auditors" in place of "PWC".

Clearly, PWC have required that their name be pulled from all gambling sites.

Why is this? Why the secrecy?

I've little doubt PWC haven't ended their relationship with online gambling - I see payout reports as recent as September with their stamp on it (these haven't been pulled). So why have PWC gone undercover - or HAVE they in fact now pulled their relationship with the industry?

This has done Ecogra no favours: the lack of transparency made the whole TGTR claim a non-issue for me from the offset, but to have now lost the right to at least say WHO is doing the "secret software verification" makes a mockery of it - and THIS much is not even Ecogra's fault.

Why have PriceWaterhouseCooper gone "underground"? Why secrecy where there was transparency?

[Casinomeister]

Something is unexplained here: it isn't just Ecogra who've pulled all reference to PriceWaterhouseCooper - it's EVERY online gambling site out there. They all now say "independent auditors" in place of "PWC"....

Actually, I think this was done a couple of years ago. In February 2004, I received this email from Brightshare's affiliate manager:

Hi Bryan,

I would like to draw your attention to an urgent matter. Please be advised that PriceWaterhouseCoopers has instructed all Microgaming casinos as follows:

1. It is not permissible to use the PwC logo and/or brand name in any e-mails whatsoever. This includes third party advertising.

2. It is not permissible to use PwC's name for any feature on any third party site.

Should you have any mention of PwC on your sites, please remove them asap. If you would like to refer to the casinos you are marketing as being audited, please refer to PwC as 'one of the largest professional business service providers in the world'.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

Best Regards,

Lloyd Apter
BrightShare Network

So we are probably looking at something that is associated with permissible uses of trademarks etc., instead of PWC going "underground".

[Webzcas]

Yep, this is correct. Ladbrokes were also asked to remove the PWC Logo and now have on their casino site: Payout Reviews by Independant Auditors

That said the payouts still get audited by PWC. Well they did back in July anyhow.

[Petunia]

** PWC still does the auditing for the MGS casinos etc. I think, personally, Bryan has hit it on the nail with the whole "use of trademark" statement. I also think the reason for that, is because PWC does not have time to argue with the likes of SOME players, questioning their integrity or complaining about the online casinos being fraudulent, and then taking the 'flaming' from the likes of these same players.
How many threads has started with "PWC is paid off by MGS" or something similar. How many individuals wrote to them and accused them of being paid off. Over the years, I guess it added up. PWC, as far as I am concerned, does not have time to deal with each and every player's request to see information, or to deal with the acusations. THAT is not why they are there.
Or maybe, they just don't want to be publically associated with the online gambling industry.
All in all, it does not matter. IF it was not PWC, but another accounting firm, the same accusations, the same flaming, the same doubt would have been casted upon them. THAT, unfortuanately is the nature of the industry.
I can tell you though, I have worked with an online company AAAAGES ago. (1999) and had to sit through and audit by PWC. These guys in their grey suites were all over the bloody place, poking their noses in everywhere! Even the marketing companies had to show precise information... that was then. This is now. I don't know how things work now.. but I do know that back then, it was a frigging nightmare when those dudes floated around for a whole week! **

[caruso]

OK, I'm behind the times - I thought it was a recent removal.

Yes, like I said above, even without Bryan's pasted email this was clearly a PWC directive - but why the secrecy? In the first place, why was the Brightshare fella not told WHY this directive had been sent his way, and in the second, if the business relationship between PWC and online gambling sites is ongoing, WHY conceal it? - you don't have to dig beyond even a couple of clicks on the sites to find the PWC-stamped reports. It's not been definitively covered up, it's simply been removed from the home pages.

Effectively, PWC want to remain associated with online gambling, but apparently prefer the matter to be publically unstated.

Quite the little mystery. If trademark use was permissable for five years (or however many), why is it no longer? And since it's THEY doing the work, what in the world is wrong with stating the fact? I'm not convinced by the trademark usage argument.

I emailed PWC on the matter yesterday, but my guess is they will not be clamouring to get a reply my way any time soon. If I'm wrong, I'll report the facts immediately.

[spearmaster]

Actually, this dates back to 2002, though in the case of eCOGRA it's probably more recent.