What on earth is happening to the online casino industry?

[TheBloke]

In the past 2-3 months, we have seen:

• Grand Prive rogued for allowing an underage user to play at all their casinos
• Casino-On-Net rogued for spam/site theft
• Jackpot Factory rogued for predatory and irresponsible marketing
• English Harbour caught dealing an unfair game
• Belle Rock found to be rejecting ID documents without explanation and requiring unreasonable extra certification which they then also reject

All of these were (previously) reputable and reliable groups, and all of them have dragged their reputations through the mud very recently.

What is happening to this industry? This is a time when casinos should be pulling out all the stops to prove themselves honest, lest the whole industry collapses under the weight of the US anti-gambling bill.

Instead we are seeing a string of public debacles that make the industry as a whole seem like a joke. Anyone looking for ammunition in the fight against online casinos would need look no further than the Casinomeister complaints forum for the past couple of months. Goodlatte et al must be rubbing their hands in glee at the stupidity of all these operators.

Is this just a coincidence? Or is competition hotting up so much that they feel they have to use any trick to get ahead? I would love to hear from any 'industry insiders' who might be able to shed light on whether these recent events are part of a greater trend, or whether it is just unfortunate that all of these groups have shown their true colours at the same time.

 

[soflat]

I think some of those have been ongoing problems that are just coming out in the open now.

 

[Pinababy69]

What an absolutely great post The Bloke, and a topic certainly worthy of discussion. I'd also love to hear anyone's viewpoints on why all of this is happening.

 

[Simmo!]

I think some of the "old-timers" will probably argue that things are a lot better now than they used to be What we're seeing at the moment, IMO, is casinos in a very competitive field trying to get an advantage. And yes, I know some of the tactics employed are "dubious" at best!

But, also, it's a young industry and everything will probably happen once. Let's just hope with the exposure it is only "once". That's how new industries develop...by learning from experience.

I also think that the US and UK and developed countries are partly responsible for not providing a framework of legislation and forcing the industry "offshore". While smaller territories like Gibraltar are perhaps more forward-thinking, they also find themeselves trying to cope with a multi-billion $ industry in its formative years. "Prohibition" in the US will only exacerbate the situation, while the UK at least are looking to provide this framework in the near future.

Interestingly, you'll probably notice that the "big issues" tend not to come from "brands" like the big old Bookmaking brands. Sure they are still learning and make mistakes, but you will never get a Jackpot Factory style issue or an "888" issue at Ladbrokes, Victor Chandler, Coral, Tote, William Hill or Littlewoods for example - in my opinion at least. The closest you'll get is a Bella Vegas which is as much down to software controls and practical issues rather than ethical or "blackhat" standpoints. And this partly comes from the tight regulation they are subject to and more importantly, are used to working within.

Finally, I think many people would be shocked - or pehaps not - at what goes on in the world of big business and politics. Stuff there, were it all to be as publically broadcast to this audience, would make the issues we are seeing pale into insignificance! Or maybe we have simply accepted that it happens through media saturation and forget the fact.

Just my thoughts - great subject by the way TB

Simmo!

 

[TheBloke]

Very good points Simmo. I agree that these issues are probably inevitable, and also probably mostly coincidental in timing.

It's just such a shame that all of this is happening at the worst possible time.

That said, I think it quite likely that Goodlatte and his cronies probably never find out about any of these situations. I suspect they did no research beyond looking at top line numbers, and that probably continues to this day. So hopefully these sort of issues - whilst seeming very big to us - are actually not making much of a difference to the chances of the legislation passing or not.

Nonetheless, there is still a risk that they do get reported outside of the gambling community, and regardless of their effect on the bill they are still very serious in their own right.

I do hope some good will come of this, and the operators realise that they can't continue to screw over their players and the community in such a visible way. Certainly, as you say, this sort of corruption will never go away entirely, but hopefully we can reach a point where at least the individual user can be relatively certain he is not going to be messed with.

Also, and at the risk of throwing yet more fuel on this smouldering fire - I note that all but one (EH) of the list above are eCOGRA approved. Let's also hope that they grow some teeth and actually start addressing the prevalent problems in the industry before someone else addresses them for us, and not in the way we would want.

 

[Simmo!]

Certainly, as you say, this sort of corruption will never go away entirely, but hopefully we can reach a point where at least the individual user can be relatively certain he is not going to be messed with.

Those who are truly corrupt will eventually be found out. But not before we have casualties along the way. But I think a lot of what we see isn't corruption as such, just poor decisions, a lack of control, or badly misjudged techniques. Or turning a blind eye to situations they have been placed in until it inevitably bites them in the butt. It's equally important, 888 case in point, that the casinos are *seen* to be doing the right thing as much as they are *actually* doing it if they are to remain competitive and respected.

I also think that some players contribute to a number of the issues faced, whether it be knowingly or not. That's not to say the vast majority, but a minority. Sometimes it's down to being ill-informed, but often it's down to sheer human greed - let's call it "competitiveness" And the minority cause the majority to suffer in many instances. So while the casinos themselves are the only ones in a realistic position to change the landscape, they will always be up against the less ethical punter.

And the sheer nature of the business means there will always be an element of Them Vs. Us. That's just how it always has been, always will be. That's gambling - two entities trying to gain from the other Plus the vocal "moral minority" who feel gambling is bad for everyone will always be out there digging away. Personally, I'd like to see their efforts to change the world focused on getting Bush to particpate in the Kyoto agreement which has far more wide-reaching consequences than gambling! But that's not going to happen. Oh look...we're back round to "greed" again

 

[vinylweatherman]

Poor

The worst thing about the BelleRock case is that the the casino is answerable to no-one once eCogra take their side. The player has no means of appeal, and is even prohibited from understanding the causes of the problems, hardly helpful if all they have done is made a silly mistake because they don't have a degree in computer science in order to determine whether they are themselves or the reincarnation of another player as far as cyberspace is concerned.

I suspect that if we find out what is behind all these "documentation" issues, and allowed to make our own minds up we would be scared away from playing. It is arrogant for BelleRock to assume that what they see is evidence of bad faith or fraud by the player, rather than consider the possibility that it is a great big misunderstanding all round, easily corrected once out in the open.

The other cases are more to do with taking a hard business approach to running the casino. The type of approach they object to when their players try it with bonuses!

Big business frequently makes such mistakes, and customers can write and phone till they are blue in the face, but once the company has decided that they owe money, pulled a stunt etc. they refuse to listen to reason. One only has to see how often casinos keep "losing the E-mails" from players once their is an issue.

As the industry matures, it WILL get out into the broader public. BBC TV "Watchdog" have already laid into Paypal, and exposed eBay for shafting it's customers through the very mechanisms that are supposed to protect them. eBay also have a habit of ignoring E-mails, and don't allow alternative means of communication. Online POKER was mentioned this season, this is VERY close indeed to doing an article on casinos, it's a matter of WHEN, rather than IF, and with the UK being saturated with adverts now I expect there are already players writing to consumer programmes as they are so new they are unaware of Casinomeister, or what a "seal" is, or is not, when on a website.

All this bad publicity makes it harder to convince new players that their money is secure, and more important, that they really will get paid when they beat the house on occasion, without the forensic examination into reasons why payment should not be made.

If anyone is interested, the trigger point for BBC Watchdog is about 100 complaints of substance, they can be made through the website on the BBC, and the new season is in the Autumn, just a few months before the provisions that cover remote gaming (online casinos etc) come into force.

 

[Slotster!]

Great points Simmo... It's interesting that the 32RED management team hail mainly from established and respected gambling names in the UK - backs up your theory beautifully!

 

[Vesuvio]

This was always an unregulated industry, but the silver lining was that sites like Casinomeister were taken seriously. Now we seem to be on the verge of casinos considering them an irrelevance. They don't feel the need to respond to issues and assume that any amount of bad press will have a negligible effect on their business (more than outweighed by the extra profits their policies bring in).

Judging by Bellerock and Casino On Net the casinos now feel comfortable that eCOGRA will simply back them up even if they're just invoking the "we can do whatever we like" clause.

Simmo, you're right about the UK bookmaking brands. They actually do care about their reputation, not to mention the fact that they make enough money to have learnt that it's counterproductive to cheat their players just to cream off some extra profit.

 

[Simmo!]

This was always an unregulated industry, but the silver lining was that sites like Casinomeister were taken seriously. Now we seem to be on the verge of casinos considering them an irrelevance.

I think there are quite a number of casinos who take the views expressed here, in the main, pretty seriously. The ones that are trying to be above board and act honestly at least. Or they at least read and digest.

Although I've noticed recently that the site does seem to be attracting more players who see public forums as a means to blackmail a casino, which obviously doesn't help any of us - players, casinos or the perception of the industry. That said, they're not usually tricky to spot and I think most people see them for what they are.

And I'd always feel safe in the hands of an established Bookmaker running an online casino. Doesn't mean their support or service are always up with the smaller independents mind! But that's the all-important "brand image" for you.

Of course conversely, it takes a clever team to stop the brand from growing to the point where it's success is resented. Over here, the more a brand succeeds, the more people want to knock it. Microsoft found that. And now Google are starting to see it. Fickle lot we are eh

 

[liquidsoap]

greed GREED greed

Thats why most casinos join the business, working in an office making $15 an hour wasnt good enough. Now they got to go for the big time and instead of earning there money by having great customer service and fast cashouts. They have to cheat, or spam, or do what ever jackpot factory is doing to make a decent living.

 

[vtlady]

Maybe if Washington would regulate online gaming for our casinos in the USA we wouldn't be having all these problems with online gaming.

By the way has anyone noticed the link of of Intercasino to the Ucasville Casino in CT?

 

[Simmo!]

Maybe if Washington would regulate online gaming for our casinos in the USA we wouldn't be having all these problems with online gaming.

Definately a contributing factor, only set to get worse if they succeed in introducing the head-in-the-sand prohibition approach.

 

[RobWin]

Maybe if Washington would regulate online gaming for our casinos in the USA we wouldn't be having all these problems with online gaming.

By the way has anyone noticed the link of of Intercasino to the Ucasville Casino in CT?

They will be regulating it in about two years or less when Harrah's and MGM go live online at least in the US. Harrah's already has plans in progress and software development too. I know something,

 

[MarcyW]

They will be regulating it in about two years or less when Harrah's and MGM go live online at least in the US. Harrah's already has plans in progress and software development too. I know something,

So you think that while Congress has pending bills to ban online gaming totally that major US corporations are in development? I know something too, that your statement is a little hard to believe. Especially when you hint at secret info that you are privy to. If you knew something then share it.

 

[pacers31]

I agree, share the info if you really have it. It would make sense that American politicians would want American gambling entities to be the ones to profit from online regulation, but since when does something have to make sense for politicians to be involved in it???LOL! As long as the right wing holy rollers have their way, it will be banned. The only hope is that the congress will run out of time in the current session and that in November the make up of the legislature will change favorably for all of us. If it makes it to a vote this session, the morality police will win and it will be banned. Seems the party of "less government" has changed it's spots.

 

[caruso]

I echo the basic sentiment of the thread, with the small caveat that it hardly comes as a surprise to me. Microgaming is held as the general standard to which other providers should be judged, yet in the space of six months we've had some of the biggest groups - Grand Priv, Jackpot Factory, Bellerock and Trident - pulling stunts ranging from unacceptably irritating to downright diabolical and absolute worthy of casino roguedom. These groups represent a substantial chunk of that particular provider's stable. These are the "best".

From a player's perspective, the future looks very bleak: most Microgaming casinos can be trusted no more; almost NO Playtechs can be, and the same can be said for RTG. There is a handful of acceptable smaller providers - Net Entertainment, Wagerworks - covering casinos you can practically count on one hand. Of the other big players, Cassava are now tainted with the site-scraping issue and player non-payment "bonus abuse" issues. The casino arm of PartyGaming seems almost the best of the bunch (LOOOOOOL, iGlobalMedia - go figure ) - but are their casinos patronised much? And then, they have several casino software "glitch" issues that they have totally failed to respond to. Why? For the same reason these other groups are now moving over to the dark side - because they can; they consider themselves big enough to weather any storm. And they're right. They pretty much ARE big enough to be able to withstand the occasional forum battering, particularly since many of these now have eCOGRA fighting their corner.

To anyone asking my advice about the viability of entering the online gambling scene now, I would advise them to stay far away. Even with the obvious adherent advantages to be had online gambling, the risks are now quite phenomenal.

 

[Simmo!]

From a player's perspective, the future looks very bleak: most Microgaming casinos can be trusted no more.

I think there are undoubtedly a handful of operations that need to improve...no-one could argue that, but I think a lot depends on the definition of the word "trusted". I'd say that I feel safe at *most* Microgaming casinos, in the sense that I know I will get paid and the games are fair. But I don't generally do bonuses, which obviously makes life a lot lot easier, and that's not to say that a lot of the operations couldn't improve, particularly when it comes to handling more efficient cashouts.

I think the crux of it for me personally is that I am above the legal age to gamble, I don't take bonuses and I tend to play at Microgaming and Cryptologic casinos, or brands that I know very well. With this in mind, I've never once had a problem at the dozens of casinos I have played bar the odd annoying delay for documentation or the suchlike. I've never not received what's due to me. That probably gives me a slightly one-sided picture mind you, but the message is clear - to me anyway

 

[paul02085]

I am tired of hearing excuses for and by these casinos like they used bad judgement, didnt train people well, etc. There are alot of things being done by these businesses that all professional managers know should NEVER be done yet they still happen. Nobody can tell me these are inncocent mistakes, rather as liquidsoap says its all GREED.

They figure lets throw all kinds of garbage at the wall and see what sticks. Its a shame to see MG sites starting to act like RTG and Playtech. Very sad.

 

[Pinababy69]

Very sad.

That about sums up the way I feel about it. Personally, I'm getting real close to just walking away from it all.

 

[The Watchdog]

IMHO

I believe that what is happening is that during the last years a lot of people have learned that this has become a very lucrative business, so anyone with some extra bucks in his pocket, an it guy and some guy pretending to know about marketing can run an online gambling business.

This has caused the industry to grow so much, that now we are over flooded with non-professional operations and scammers on every corner.

I am not saying the casinos mentioned on the first post belong to this group, may be they just slipped on some things, but is amazing how the industry has grown over the last 3-4 years.

Now days is very easy to find casinos offering amazing bonuses, fast payouts, excellent service but probably only 5% of all the online gambling sites are really making an effort to keep their customers satisfied and focusing on providing a better product every day.

 

[mitch]

It's not all doom and gloom out there.

Same as Simmo said I have always been paid by every casino I have ever played at. Never been messed about even, apart from some casinos seeking ID before payment.

If you get the right casino and build up a good relationship with them they can really look after you well.

As an example I am flying to Germany in a couple of weeks time for a few days staying in one of Germanys top hotels and getting a fully hosted VIP hospitality package for the World Cup. All this courtesy of the casino.

This is just one of many fantastic events that have been offered to me over the last year. These offers are on top of 20,000 worth of Match bonuses offered during the same period.

The good casinos will surely rise to the top in this business.
Rip off merchants cannot survive for ever against those that provide the customer service that players will come to expect in what is still a new and developing business.

Mitch

 

[Slotster!]

It's not all doom and gloom out there.
As an example I am flying to Germany in a couple of weeks time for a few days staying in one of Germanys top hotels and getting a fully hosted VIP hospitality package for the World Cup. All this courtesy of the casino.


Mitch

Hmmm.. Which casino is this exactly!?? I think I need to play there!!!

 

[caruso]

I'd say that I feel safe at *most* Microgaming casinos, in the sense that I know I will get paid and the games are fair. But I don't generally do bonuses, which obviously makes life a lot lot easier...I don't take bonuses and I tend to play at Microgaming and Cryptologic casinos.

All these Microgaming issues, apart from Jackpot Factory, revolve around bonuses. Of course casinos don't create problems for slot junkies. Casinos don't like bonus players. Here's the difference: Intercasino, no less liking of them that Trident / Bellerock / Jackpot Factory / Grand Priv, didn't ever try to screw one. Time was, neither did these Microgamings. This has now changed. And, into this bonus-orientated melting pot, we can now add the disgusting marketing tactics of Jackpot Factory. Now mix in the ever more apparent fact that eCOGRA will basically find for the casino by default (evidence of Cassava and Bellerock).

I don't trust Microgaming anymore. I haven't trusted Cassava for some time. I don't trust their "regulator".

If you trust them, that's the different perspective of a slot-playing affiliate. Other people will make up their own minds, from their own perspectives.

 

[Vesuvio]

I have always been paid by every casino I have ever played at. Never been messed about even, apart from some casinos seeking ID before payment.

Touch wood, Mitch - I could say that until Bellerock a couple of weeks ago...

 

[Pinababy69]

I have always been paid by every casino I have ever played at. Never been messed about even, apart from some casinos seeking ID before payment.

Mitch

So have I Mitch. I've had a couple of small stumbling blocks and delays, but nothing major. But you know what? I'm getting to the point where I really am scared to play anywhere but 32Red. I've played nowhere else but there for probably three months now. But that's it, I'm down to one casino.

And I sure as hell don't even feel comfortable referring a player to any casinos, save 2 or 3, where at the very least I'm sure I could help them if they did run into problems.

 

[Linus]

I echo the basic sentiment of the thread, with the small caveat that it hardly comes as a surprise to me. Microgaming is held as the general standard to which other providers should be judged, yet in the space of six months we've had some of the biggest groups - Grand Priv, Jackpot Factory, Bellerock and Trident - pulling stunts ranging from unacceptably irritating to downright diabolical and absolute worthy of casino roguedom. These groups represent a substantial chunk of that particular provider's stable. These are the "best".

I'm curious what casinos you think are reputable.

My list includes 32Red and Intercasino. I'm curious whether you agree with that, and which others belong on the list.

From a player's perspective, the future looks very bleak: most Microgaming casinos can be trusted no more; almost NO Playtechs can be, and the same can be said for RTG. There is a handful of acceptable smaller providers - Net Entertainment, Wagerworks - covering casinos you can practically count on one hand. Of the other big players, Cassava are now tainted with the site-scraping issue and player non-payment "bonus abuse" issues. The casino arm of PartyGaming seems almost the best of the bunch (LOOOOOOL, iGlobalMedia - go figure ) - but are their casinos patronised much? And then, they have several casino software "glitch" issues that they have totally failed to respond to. Why? For the same reason these other groups are now moving over to the dark side - because they can; they consider themselves big enough to weather any storm. And they're right. They pretty much ARE big enough to be able to withstand the occasional forum battering, particularly since many of these now have eCOGRA fighting their corner.

From what I've seen, there are more than a few poker players who are willing to gamble it up at the Party casino - sometimes losing thousands at a time. Given the size of their player base, I'm guessing their casino is very profitable. I don't know how many people play there, though.

To anyone asking my advice about the viability of entering the online gambling scene now, I would advise them to stay far away. Even with the obvious adherent advantages to be had online gambling, the risks are now quite phenomenal.

When you say, "entering the online gambling scene," are you talking about players or operators/affiliates?

What advantages are you talking about?

 

[vinylweatherman]

It'll come back to haunt them!

If they are unable to convince players that all these problems are caused by a justified response to a rogue player, how are regular players to know that they won't become a victim of such issues.

Currently, I have been asked more than once for documents by several reputable (or formerly reputable) casinos. How can I be sure that when I resubmit the same documents as earlier they won't suddenly find some "inconsistency" with them. There seems no way for a player to have a once and for all validation at a given casino, it is always ongoing. So far, I have always been paid in the end, except by one notorious RTG!

I recall a couple of cases where Palace Group gave a player trouble with an "inconsistency", in this case, the rep found that the cause was an error on their part, they had simply mixed his data with that from another player with similar details, and the system flagged possible duplicate account issues.
With BelleRock, could we just have one employee stating to his bosses, "these documents don't look right", and the security juggernaut is set in motion, and nothing will stand in it's way, not even common sense.
While this player has just not been paid, people have spent years of their lives in jail due to blunders, and can not get anyone to listen to their protestations of innocence.

The most recent case of some noteriety in the UK was Prof Meadows and his "personal crusade" on his theories of "shaken baby syndrome". There have been several appeal court aquitals, compensation payments, and a system finally prepard to accept that one man and his theories are NOT irrefutable evidence of a criminal act having taken place. After this, we had "experts" in Scotland making wrong determinations based on fingerprint analysis, and were accused of trying to cover up rather than seeing justice done to those affected (the truth is still not out on this one!).

I am quite capable, therefore, of believing that even a big company will attempt to whitewash over a mistake to save it's image rather than admit to a monumental blunder having taken place.

Now, when I am asked for documents I am going to think "Oh S***, am I going to have trouble here", rather than "Oh well, a necessary formality, better get it over with, and all should be OK".

 

[caruso]

I'm curious what casinos you think are reputable. My list includes 32Red and Intercasino. I'm curious whether you agree with that, and which others belong on the list.

Actually, yeah: Intercasino. iNetBet (next to Intercasino at the top). I'm not a fan of 32Red for reasons I've gone into often. All Net Entertainment casinos (NEVER a complaint in their entire history), I think all WagerWorks casinos are fine. Playtech has a small reputable handful, but none I would be comfortable recommending after the "reputable" Acropolis started pulling stunts a while back.

Not much of a list. Intercasino and iNetBet, both almost 100% clean, and with good games and good comp programmes.

When you say, "entering the online gambling scene," are you talking about players or operators/affiliates?

Players. For operators and affiliates, it's going to be Cash City Central.

What advantages are you talking about?

Just bog-standard online casino advantage play. Frankly, it beats the hell out of me why anyone with a head fixed approximately on their shoulders would play for any other reason. Always baffled me. Always will do.

 

[greedygirl]

So you think that while Congress has pending bills to ban online gaming totally that major US corporations are in development? I know something too, that your statement is a little hard to believe. Especially when you hint at secret info that you are privy to. If you knew something then share it.

Marcy--I think you're a bit naive here.

There's a bit of a history lesson here, so sorry if I bore anyone...

Going back to the summer, previous to the Trade Center bombings, Nevada had voted to move forward with online gambling for the land-based properties. Following the vote, things moved to the Nevada legislature to sort out the odds and ends--things were looking quite good. The land-based casinos had their software in the ready and were anxious to get moving.

Then 9/11 happened--everything changed. Due to the overall climate in the US (helped by the ridiculous McCarthy-esque Patriot Act), all movement within the Nevada legislature regarding online gaming was dropped. The Patriot Act all but prevented things from going further.

With that, Hard Rock and MGM decided to take things into their own hands by spending over $10million each to become one of only a handfull of casinos to license through the Island of Man (IOM). The IOM seemed like a great way to go, as they have the stiffest policies for their licensees--everything would have to be aboveboard. Great as this may be, however, there was to be one stipulation--IOM would not permit Hard Rock and MGM to allow US players (even if they had, though, it would never have flown with Nevada Gaming laws for the land-based counterparts). As a result, MGM and Hard Rock never gained solid footing, as they were marketing to countries where their land-based brand names had no brand recognition, whatsoever. With high licensing fees, etc., these casinos never had a chance.

In the case of Harrah's, they recently attempted a fairly goofy stab at opening up a bingo site in the UK. Harrah's is now the largest land-based operator in the world and they have plans to build land-based properties in the UK. In theory the move to test Harrah's in the UK would seem brilliant, due to the UK's move to regulation. Unfortunately, it was not great software, the marketing of the site was not organized and things fell apart quickly.

For the future, don't count MGM and Hard Rock out. Moreover, Harrah's is likely to have the greatest impact of any US land-based operator. Because they have a huge interest in traditional land-based casinos AND Indian gaming (Indian gaming has been using their deep-pockets in an effort to lobby against online gaming), Harrah's is something of the "great white hope" to affect a change on US policy. They're the only Indian gaming-involved entity pushing for online regulation, plus they have their interest in the UK market, which the US will be greatly influenced by.

Beyond all this, you can be certain that just about every major land-based casino in Vegas is poised with software, marketing plans, and big money to be ready for the moment when they can do so in a legal environment.

Sorry if anyone fell asleep while reading this--you probably needed a good nap anyhow. <grin>

 

[Ivy29]

Changes

I started playing in 2001. Not only have I learned a lot, as most of us know it has changed dramatically.

The list of places I will play is down to 3 or 4 now. One of the top places I've played at for the longest finally pissed me off for the last time today and they are deleted from my computer.

If things go sour with the last few I will play at, I might have to get my ass off the chair and drive to the casino boat every now and then in between trips to Vegas and forget online gambling. It's way more fun anyway, not that I don't love the convenience of playing in my pajamas.

 

[Simmo!]

It's way more fun anyway, not that I don't love the convenience of playing in my pajamas.

Do they have a dress code on the casino boat? If not...best of both worlds

 

[Ivy29]

Dress Code?

Simmo!

I've been known to get ice in my PJ's, video poker? Hmmm.....

 

[vtlady]

Intercasino

I am afraid I have to disagree about Intercasino. I know for a fact that they were responsible for helping a woman who was recently widowed and was under several doctor's care for depression and many physical disabilities deplete some of her life savings to the tune of over $40,000 in less then 5 months of playing with them. Also, i know she never did one withdrawal with them. To me a perosn has to be pretty wealthy to do this.

I also know it to be true that she contacted Ryan the casino manager as well as Mr.Rose the top dog of Cryptologic who I believe owns Intercasino and they in so many words told her to bad, were sorry for the lose of your husband but we can't help ya honey. They told her they didn't think her spending was all that excessive because they had checked out her financial information. Well, now how did they do that.

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

 

[Linus]

Vtlady -- if feels strange, but I have to say, if that's the worst thing Intercasino's done... that's this > < close to praise. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any casino anywhere, online or off, that returns someone's money after they lose. I don't care if it's MGM Grand or the Bellagio, that's not how gambling works. What they can do, and should do, is cut her off. But they can't give her her money back.

 

[paul02085]

I am afraid I have to disagree about Intercasino. I know for a fact that they were responsible for helping a woman who was recently widowed and was under several doctor's care for depression and many physical disabilities deplete some of her life savings to the tune of over $40,000 in less then 5 months of playing with them. Also, i know she never did one withdrawal with them. To me a perosn has to be pretty wealthy to do this.

I also know it to be true that she contacted Ryan the casino manager as well as Mr.Rose the top dog of Cryptologic who I believe owns Intercasino and they in so many words told her to bad, were sorry for the lose of your husband but we can't help ya honey. They told her they didn't think her spending was all that excessive because they had checked out her financial information. Well, now how did they do that.

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

May i ask how were Intercasino responsible? Did they use some underhanded marketing scheme to get her to play there? NO.

I assume after she lost she asked them to give back her money and they wouldnt do it? If so how does that make them bad?

Intercasino does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with the likes of what Jackpot Factory has allowed to happen. Simply is not fair.

 

[caruso]

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

Give me a break.

You're saying that Intercasino, in accepting a woman's deposits, a woman who HAPPENED to be bereaved, a fact which Intercasino could have no way of knowing (though knowing it would change nothing, anyway), are guilty of the same level of dirty dealing as Jackpot Factory, who have specifically TARGETTED the bereaved in their marketing campaigns???

Intercasino are guilty of not giving a player her money back?? Is this the accusation? She phoned them up to say "I just lost 40K, but I also just lost my husband so give it back"?

 

[Simmo!]

I was thinking about this thread last night. I don't actually think the industry is in such a bad way to be honest. I think it's because we spend part of each day deeply involved in the "complaints" section of Casinomeister, and it inevitably brings the problems to the fore that perhaps gives that perception. Coupled with which, I think a number of people immediately jump to a conclusion and "assume the worst". Inevitable that it gets people thinking about what's going on.

If you look at it, we've had 4 what I term "major" topics recently. Going through the complaints section, most of the others are related to bonus issues. Take bonuses out of the equation and that's 90% of the issues gone in one hit. Although as I previously stated that doesn't mean they aren't "issues" and casinos that rely on them are inviting trouble.

Examine the causes of main issues we've faced more closely:

Bella Vegas - An underage player illegally signed up
English Harbour - May or may not have been cheating or poor code control
King Neptunes - A player didn't play within the terms at the casino
Jackpot Factory - Someone somewhere did some very distatsteful marketing

Some people have taken the stance in a very vocal fashion that Bella Vegas were to blame for allowing the underage player to play, that King Neptunes should have paid the winnings to the player who didn't know the terms, that English Harbour were "deliberately" cheating and that Jackpot Factory management planned and orchestrated the marketing campaign. This was all very vocally questioned, and nothing wrong with that when done in a constructive manner.

Maybe thay're right in every single instance.

But two of those are "assumptions" and two of those are problems that at worst, could have been handled better by the casinos, but were problems caused by players not understanding the rules. The Bella case should have a good outcome in that rules and regulations will hopefully be tightened up within the software. The JF case will hopefully also show others that this type of marketing will not be tolerated.

This thread is here because there has been a lot of vocal players involved in the issues, and that's no bad thing at all. But I also think it has dominated the scene over the past couple of months to the extent where we are in danger of not seeing the wood through the trees.

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp". Makes for good entertainment but it does get the blood sugar up at times. Oh and while each camp can wind up the other at times, it's essential to have that mix to have balanced debates. It does inevitably mean that the conflicting "assumptions" are what the debates are based on.

But this doesn't mean that the industry is in a bad way. It means, if all our worst-case assumptions are true, then the industry is in a bad way.

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Assumptions

Many will "assume the worst", but this is how we have been brought up in the world of the internet.

With the KN case, the debate revolved about the term "may" in the confiscation clause. We are to believe that where such terms are present, we as players should always assume the worst, and the KN case proved this, that "may", actually meant "will almost certainly".
In the BelleRock case, they believed that the documents "may" have been tampered with, did they give the player a chance to explain? NO, they would not say what the problem was, and neither would eCogra. They could have had reason to conclude the documents were not OK, but they assumed the player was acting in bad faith - they thought the worst. It may turn out that a totally innocent explanation will turn up as to why the documents did not look right, may even be a mix up at BelleRock with the details of two similar players erroneously merged into one file (it's happened before in big business).
If a player has a good run off a bonus, they are "advantage players", or they may be "working in a team". Casinos give no option for the player to didcuss this, it's a case of deposit returned (mostly!), and locked accounts.

If casinos worry that players are too quick to brand the industry as "rip off merchants", they should look at their own behaviour towards some of their players. Casinos only get hit by the "whores" because they have not properly analysed the potential of their promotions from the perspective of a skilled player (sometimes known as an advantage player). Many people bet on horse races, many will spend hours studying form, the track, going etc before placing their bet, this is surely "advantage betting". Are they to be denied payment because they didn't just stick a pin inthe page and bet on the horse it selected!
Casinos must remember, the best of the "bonus whores" are NOT individual players who just happen upon a promotion, they are organised groups, just like here at casinomeister, and if one sees a promotion, they post it, others get the calculators out, and before the day is out someone has posted a suggested "whoring" strategy, along the lines of "get it while you can". Any sign-up offer with +EV will be hit, so they need to design them to be attractive to new players (big absolute numbers), but terms that are both simple, and that cannot be subject to +EV methods - save those types of offers for the loyal players. There ARE other methods of bonusing players apart from the match deposit method - only a few casinos have tried these, and this can make them stand out in a crowd when they use the more popular software clients.

 

[Vesuvio]

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

The moment the reputable end of the casino industry starts applying the "we can do whatever we like" clause (or not even bothering to apply any clause at all!) and denying payouts I think this industry has fallen apart. Judging from Bellerock, Casino on Net and others we seem to be at that point. It's all very well to say it only applies to bonus hunters, but 1) we pretty much all play with bonuses and it's getting to the stage winning on any offer makes the casinos label you a bonus hunter, & 2) casinos that realise they can get away with cheating bonus hunters are going to apply the same methods in dealing with any large payouts to "recreational" players. It's a slippery slope - the very fact that the casinos have managed to introduce the nonsensical term "bonus abusers" for people who take them up on their offers and try to win is a case in point.

Personally the only good I can see coming from this recent trend is that people will think twice about playing at ruthless businesses that will do almost anything to take your money. The last few weeks have given a much more accurate picture of the industry than the months when topics like "Winner Screenshots" and "Which Slot's Hot" have dominated.

 

[phynqster]

The biggest problem I see with all of this is that if the more tnformed players walk away from the casinos, that leaves the degenerate gamblers and newbies for the casinos. So casinos profits start going up and up untill they run out of new players. It is almost like a multi level marketing scam, with the casinos getting in on the bottom floor. I don't think regulation is the ultimate answer, I think that casinos HAVE to become publically held entities, where they must listen topublic opinion.

 

[jetset]

I was thinking about this thread last night. I don't actually think the industry is in such a bad way to be honest. I think it's because we spend part of each day deeply involved in the "complaints" section of Casinomeister, and it inevitably brings the problems to the fore that perhaps gives that perception. Coupled with which, I think a number of people immediately jump to a conclusion and "assume the worst". Inevitable that it gets people thinking about what's going on.

If you look at it, we've had 4 what I term "major" topics recently. Going through the complaints section, most of the others are related to bonus issues. Take bonuses out of the equation and that's 90% of the issues gone in one hit. Although as I previously stated that doesn't mean they aren't "issues" and casinos that rely on them are inviting trouble.

Examine the causes of main issues we've faced more closely:

Bella Vegas - An underage player illegally signed up
English Harbour - May or may not have been cheating or poor code control
King Neptunes - A player didn't play within the terms at the casino
Jackpot Factory - Someone somewhere did some very distatsteful marketing

Some people have taken the stance in a very vocal fashion that Bella Vegas were to blame for allowing the underage player to play, that King Neptunes should have paid the winnings to the player who didn't know the terms, that English Harbour were "deliberately" cheating and that Jackpot Factory management planned and orchestrated the marketing campaign. This was all very vocally questioned, and nothing wrong with that when done in a constructive manner.

Maybe thay're right in every single instance.

But two of those are "assumptions" and two of those are problems that at worst, could have been handled better by the casinos, but were problems caused by players not understanding the rules. The Bella case should have a good outcome in that rules and regulations will hopefully be tightened up within the software. The JF case will hopefully also show others that this type of marketing will not be tolerated.

This thread is here because there has been a lot of vocal players involved in the issues, and that's no bad thing at all. But I also think it has dominated the scene over the past couple of months to the extent where we are in danger of not seeing the wood through the trees.

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp". Makes for good entertainment but it does get the blood sugar up at times. Oh and while each camp can wind up the other at times, it's essential to have that mix to have balanced debates. It does inevitably mean that the conflicting "assumptions" are what the debates are based on.

But this doesn't mean that the industry is in a bad way. It means, if all our worst-case assumptions are true, then the industry is in a bad way.

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

An excellent post, Simmo and one in which I share your viewpoint.

Casinomeister has always been about balance and some respect for the views of others, no matter how different from our own, and once we lose that open-mindedness we will lose the attention and respect that both sides of the fence have for this site and what it can and does achieve. In fact a large part of it's ability to achieve results where many others fail is that balance.

There will always be contentious posts from one or more of the three factions Simmo identifies, together with some that are downright insulting, abusive or personal. Whilst these may frustrate and anger members of the other factions, that's part of the way issues are handled here providing there is an element of self-control.

I believe Simmo's post is worthwhile reading to keep a sense of overall perspective, and that good revisions of policies and conduct can result from reasoned exchanges and constructive input from members of a forum such as this.

 

[Vesuvio]

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp".

I didn't notice that comment before, but it doesn't ring true. On most issues we quickly have a good idea what's going on and posters make up their mind more or less immediately before trying to persuade others of their view. The EH debacle was different as, apart from the fact that EH dealt a biased game and lied about it when first challenged, we were drip-fed limited facts and had to make an interpretation. I don't see "guilty 'til proven innocent" or similar categories as relevant. Simply on the basis of what we know some concluded the evidence against the casino is overwhelming. For others it's possible/probable they cheated. Some are convinced of their innocence. These aren't camps that would necessarily take up the same positions on other issues.

If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.

The problem at the moment is that it looks like the debate on here might be becoming an irrelevance, in which case there'll be no regulation left and casinos will be able to do whatever they like.

 

[Mousey]

I have determined (I looked at my totals last night) that with what I've deposited at online casinos just this year, had I taken that money to my fav B&M casino, I would have free suites, free food and free booze and various other bling-bling for many, many 4 night visits. (And that's not even looking at playthrough, which land based casinos take into consideration.)

What does this have to do with this thread? I think the biggest problem in online gaming is that the majority of casinos don't reward their regular, loyal, players. They worry about getting new players, not keeping the players they have. They just don't give a flying rat's butt whether a loyal low to medium roller continues to deposit or not.

"Awww, did we piss off a long time regular? Too bad. S/he only deposits $500 a week -- and s/he is $100 ahead for this month. Cut him off from all comps and bonuses. We'll get 2 new players in his place!"

 

[dominique]

If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.

It is not divided as Vesuvio says at all. There are a lot of players here who are not affiliates at all and who always wait until they have all the info before they judge.

There are a lot of players here who are also affiliates and who judge categorically without facts.

What I am trying to say is that, affiliate or player or both, it doesn't matter, people are still well distributed across Simmos categories.

Affiliates who categorically look at things in the casinos favor are never around for long, because casinos that cheat are cheaters. They cheat players, affiliates and their cleaning ladies alike.

Players who categorically blame the casino annoy me too, because they deflect from where the true problems are. While all the commotion is going on about casino A, casino B is getting away with murder.

Overall though, I think there is a very good balance here and while I don't always participate vocally, this board allows me to make smarter decisions as to who I would want to do business with and who I don't.

Members here are really super at getting to the bottom of things. I think probably the dynamics between the different types of personalities are exactly what causes the facts to be found.

That's why I like to come here, to find out things I couldn't have by myself. I come here to learn more.The membership here rocks!

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.UNQUOTE

I don't agree with the above comment, and it bugs me when it is used to try and deepen the divide between the various groups of posters here.

I would hope that the implication is not that only players' views and opinions are valid, because the interaction of Simmo's three factions here is a productive one which makes this a top site that we all visit regularly.

Many affiliates, webmasters and other interested parties are also players and/or are angry at seeing injustice but manage to retain a balanced perspective on issues, and in fact are more likely to be those assisting players than anyone else.

I believe, and it is frequently manifest here that most posters who are exclusively players have a fair approach to issues and are not as easily swayed as may be thought - in other words they consider the facts and form their own opinion as thinking adults.

Many of the webmasters and affiliates etc here have gone after defaulting casinos with energy and determination on player issues, and have suffered financial loss in doing so. To lump them all together with any suggestion that they are prone to favour casinos over players on issues where an opposing opinion is given is not only mistaken, it is unfair.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency by the "negative assumptions" prone to regard anything short of agreement with their often speculative views as casino-supportive: it's not - it's exercising a preference for seeking a balanced view based on fact.

 

[Simmo!]

These aren't camps that would necessarily take up the same positions on other issues.

I take your point on that V, and a lot of people certainly switch between the "camps". I do that from time to time myself. But in essence the three camps do exist with a hardcore of members and others drifting in and out.

Regards the casinos/affiliates/players camps you suggest, a similar principle applies. Affiliates like Casinomeister, Webzcas, Caruso and Dominique are probably good examples of those who, while with different outlooks and ways of attacking things, have all supported both sides at one time or another. So again you are likely to find a hardcore in each category and a number "floating".

 

[Vesuvio]

It is not divided as Vesuvio says at all. There are a lot of players here who are not affiliates at all and who always wait until they have all the info before they judge.

Except with an issue like EH we're never going to have all the info. Note also that I said nothing about whether players/casinos or affiliates wait for info or not. That's superimposing Simmo's classification.

I would hope that the implication is not that only players' views and opinions are valid, because the interaction of Simmo's three factions here is a productive one which makes this a top site that we all visit regularly.

No, I'm not saying that, just that in general the outlook on most issues is obviously going to be very different.

Anyway, of course I know the casinos/affiliates/players split is a gross generalisation. I'd just say it's a much more applicable and less divisive gross generalisation than - "innocent before proven guilty", "wait for the facts", "guilty before proven innocent" which does assume that some groups are more or less impartial than others.

 

[dominique]

Except with an issue like EH we're never going to have all the info. Note also that I said nothing about whether players/casinos or affiliates wait for info or not. That's superimposing Simmo's classification.No, I'm not saying that, just that in general the outlook on most issues is obviously going to be very different.

Anyway, of course I know the casinos/affiliates/players split is a gross generalisation. I'd just say it's a much more applicable and less divisive gross generalisation than - "innocent before proven guilty", "wait for the facts", "guilty before proven innocent" which does assume that some groups are more or less impartial than others.

I was trying to say that I don't really think there is such a split, I see people from each the player and aff commuities taking stances on either side of issues as we go.

I usually tend to want to see proof, because I don't like to destroy anyone's livelihood without positive proof, be that a casino or a mom and pop store.

Be that as it may, for instance in the EH issue you bring up, my reaction to the situation was to not promote any oddson software until they somehow regained my trust, but also I did not blacklist them since there is a lack of evidence.

While I don't always agree with all the views expressed here, since I have a portal I feel obliged to make decisions on how to react, and those are guided by my ability to protect my customers. I can't just say what I think here and be done with it, I have to actually go and do something about it.

So, obviously I have to take other factors into account. Such as, since I have no contacts and no influence with EH, I cannot list them as long as I have any doubt about their software. In another situation I may list a casino you don't trust, but where I know I have enough influence to make things right should something go wrong. If a place I have no influence with even just looks like they might be rogue I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.

So, yes, there is a somewhat different perspective, but it varies from case to case. I could easily end up on either side of the fence.

That said, I am just speaking for myself and not affs in general, because there are as many attitides and opinons as there are people.

 

[GrandMaster]

Some affiliates seem to live in a different world. I read the thread about JF at CAP, and one guy was so impressed by JF's handling of this issue that he wanted to sign up as an affiliate.