Poll....SHould there be a short list...

[babs7262]

This is my very first one and I hope I do it right, so bare with me

Question: Do you think Bryan should have a short list of exceptional online casinos rather than just a whole bunch of accredited. By no means does this mean the accredited ones shouldnt still be listed, it would just mean he would add this short list of a few select online casinos that go way beyond just being accredited and must meet strict criteria in all fields including very fast payouts, efficient and curteous customer support, A rep here at CM to answer all concerns and fair play ( fair play meaning reasonable expectations from an online casino).

1. No, dont change a thing
2. Yes, He should pick one from each software (if possible)
3. Yes, but he shouldnt have to go by software, it should be up to him
4. Yes but he should have a democratic vote and give us a chance to voice our opinion before he makes the list

 

[bb28]

If Byran ever considers changing the way that he gives accreditation I have a suggestion regarding that.
I was thinking along these lines. How about a system that rates the accredited ones differently, perhaps using 5 stars as an example of the highest accreditation which would mean that a 5 star casino has the following criteria. (This is just an example) 5 star would mean that have a rep on board that is responsive and courteous and answers questions within a specified time frame, the casino has been through an independent audit and comes out smelling like a rose, fast payouts....say within 48 hours, etc. 4 star would mean certain criteria, so would 3 star and so on with lessor stars meaning that they don't meet as stringent requirements as the 5 stars but they still are accredited.

 

[LaurieJim]

If Byran ever considers changing the way that he gives accreditation I have a suggestion regarding that.
I was thinking along these lines. How about a system that rates the accredited ones differently, perhaps using 5 stars as an example of the highest accreditation which would mean that a 5 star casino has the following criteria. (This is just an example) 5 star would mean that have a rep on board that is responsive and courteous and answers questions within a specified time frame, the casino has been through an independent audit and comes out smelling like a rose, fast payouts....say within 48 hours, etc. 4 star would mean certain criteria, so would 3 star and so on with lessor stars meaning that they don't meet as stringent requirements as the 5 stars but they still are accredited.

.......agree, but just think of the extra work load on bryani kinda like it the way it is imo...........laurie

 

[LaHutti]

I think we should be very carefull changing things like that.
Now I know that a lot of you guys are very exited about 3Dice, and the way it's run.
I've been in the tournaments and the chat of 3Dice as well, and I can see why you all are having a great time there, and Ellen, Karen and the other members of staff are all nice people, but to me the extreme exitement about that place, is more like a fun chatroom, where you think you get to know the people from 3Dice and the other players personally, and that gives you the feeling that you're special. Their games, however are no different in payout, than any other casino, as far as I can tell.
Therefore I would be very carefull rating a chatroom, wich it basicly is, as the best casino online, since it would not give people the correct picture.
Chatrooms tend to be fun for a while, but then grow old on you.

 

[chuchu59]

Other than the heavy work on Bryan, we must remember that the online casino scene is now more dynamic than it has ever been. If we were to accord ratings to each accredited casino, we shall have to carry out periodic reviews almost monthly if not weekly. Take Eurolinx for example, they were accredited not too long ago and now they are off.

People may sometimes blame this forum or Bryan for that matter for accrediting casinos that have not met their expectations. We must try to remember the rigorous process that Bryan had gone through before awarding the accredited status to the casinos. With the decline of players (mostly USA), business would have been much worse and some have resorted to roguish tactics to withhold payments. Nevertheless, the accredited list, as it is, is still useful reference for players especially newbies because Bryan and MaxD still have channels of communication with them and may be able to resolve issues than those that are not on the list.

On the short list, I do not feel there is a need for it given the ever-changing circumstances. As I said, a casino may be excellent one day and go rogue or even bust the very next day. Having such a list gives a false sense of security. For me, the accredited list is fine enough as long as Bryan removes those that set alarm bells ringing.

 

[BigSD]

I think thats a very good suggestion Babs. I think the accredited section concentrates more on minimum requirements rather than highlighting exceptional casinos like 32Red and Intercasino. Maybe there could be an emphasis on "casinomeisters picks" by calling them "gold level" accredited casinos or something?

Cheers,
MCCE

 

[KasinoKing]

Their games (3Dice), however are no different in payout, than any other casino, as far as I can tell.

And why should they be? We all know casinos only exist to make money, not give it away!
Accreditation is nothing to do with game payouts (though the games must be fair, obviously), it's to do with customer service, fairness & accountability.

I agree with Babs & bb28's idea of 'ranking' the best casinos. Some casinos are undoubtedly better than others, even if only slightly. These casinos deserve some recognition for their efforts in customer satisfaction IMO.

At the end of the day it's down to Bryan to decide if he wants to go down that route or not.

 

[The Dude]

Thanks for the suggestions - I always try to improve whatever lists I have at Casinomeister whether it's the rogue list (now broken down into a number of categories) to the accredited list which lists counties prohibited etc. Your voices help.

As mentioned, one problem is the dynamics of the industry - it changes a lot - and to single out a handful of casinos could possibly be viewed as being biased.

The problem is avoid being too subjective and to remain fair. But nevertheless, some good ideas here - it's a matter of integrating some of this information and presenting it in a aesthetic and beneficial way.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Such a scheme already exists, the annual Casinomeister awards for best casino etc.

This is based on a whole year of consistent performance, and shows which accredited casinos have indeed stood out above the rest. These are also dynamic, with it possible for a casino to win one of these awards one year, and descend into the pit the next.

The published PAB statistics and reading the complaints section should indicate which casinos are currently having issues, whether accredited or not.

One possible change would to have a section where Casinomeister members could comment about their personal feelings and experiences for each accredited casino. At the end of the awards year, this information would be archived, and used to inform the award process. The current list would be cleared each year to prevent old comments from holding back the process of reform (where they have highlighted shortcomings), and old comments shown in a separate archive under year headings.

Only members with a certain standing would be allowed to comment, certainly not those who join and then immediately fire off a complaint, as this is often just as likely a rogue player as a genuinly aggrieved party who has been told about this site, and that it might help.

 

[GaryWatson]

It's hard to satisfy everyone.

I dont like 3dice. It just doesnt seem to work well on my PC & the games didnt really excite me. Those freerolls tournies are great but my screen keeps freezing. Regardless of the customer service or fairness of game, I couldnt agree with a high rating.

Other sites I will like might be ones that others hate, just because they hit a heavy losing streak.

High up in my rankings would be th stability of software. That is a must.

Another pet peev would be customer service. On the occassion I do contact them, I expect a response.

Cashouts have not really been a problem for me, but it would be a big factor if I was based in the states.

Also, bonuses have not been an issue for me. I just dont take many bonuses but when I do, there has never been a problem.

One major thing I would look at was the sites TOS. If they have predatory terms, used or not, they should be marked down. Sites like 888 & playboy using a dormant fee is not a good sign.

It would be fairly difficult to paint an accurate picture as most players have different needs & PC capabilities.

 

[LaHutti]

And why should they be? We all know casinos only exist to make money, not give it away!
Accreditation is nothing to do with game payouts (though the games must be fair, obviously), it's to do with customer service, fairness & accountability.

I agree with Babs & bb28's idea of 'ranking' the best casinos. Some casinos are undoubtedly better than others, even if only slightly. These casinos deserve some recognition for their efforts in customer satisfaction IMO.

At the end of the day it's down to Bryan to decide if he wants to go down that route or not.

I Agree that casinos are there to make money.
What I probably don't agree on (judging from other posts in other threads by you), is the level of fairness, and I'm just pointing out, that no matter how friendly the staff seems to be, their level of fairness does not seem to differ significally from any other casino that I've tried
I also agree, that fast payment of winnings are important....if you ever win anything, that is, wich again comes down to the level of fairness, combined with luck, I guess...then again, luck doesn't really matter much, if the level of fairness is as low, as it seems to be in a lot of casinos these days.
We really need international laws, that ALL casinos must abide to, THEN we can talk about one being better than the other, once they all have to play by the same rules, and their level of fairness is actually being checked by someone trustworthy. As it is now, where they can do pretty much as they please (and do so in many cases), and are checked by ... whoever from whereever, or not, the competition without rules, just ruins the joy for the players and litterally makes it impossible to run a truly "good" casino..
Don't get me wrong...I appreciate the effort that 3Dice is, apparently, trying to stand out, but they too, are there to make money.
To me, the casino I win in today, will always be better than the one I lost in yesterday ... nice people just isn't enough, if they're still just milking my account, in an unfair fashion, every single time, even if they're being nice about it (not 3Dice in particular, but any casino).


Edited: Spelling spass

 

[happygobrokey]

as they are already categorized by software, i think the most tasteful and fair way to give the nod to the top casinos is by putting them first in the list for their software, with a red border around it/them and a small title bar with "member recommended". that way it's like bryan isn't favouring them, but providing the consensus of the casinos' satisfied customers. and with the exception of playtech, i think we can all pretty much unanimously agree to who's the best in each software. apart from "other", but even in any list just box around two or three if there are more than one equally awesome.

something like this let me go get paint...

note: while looking at the accredited page, i see that an ad banner appears just before the list of "other software providers". i think this is a little bit of a slag to those who don't run one of those "big four". not to mention that this ad even appears on my page... i have flashblock and adblockplus add-ons installed to firefox, and the ads on the side are blocked. but this one must be coded differently or not in the adblock profile. is it a coincidence it's virgin casino, the rebel billionaire's ad? just saying, or rather, giving feedback...

 

[suzecat]

I like the idea of acknowledging a casino by member recommendation. It's not that I hold CM's major efforts in little regard, but after he finishes his evaluation, the players are the ones who jump in the trenches, so to speak

 

[jas2587]

I personally think it should stay the way it is
you have the USA players that are limited as to where
they may play
so in some ways he would have to do 2

1 for the USA players
an 1 for the players that can play anywhere

3Dice is a good casino they have struck
gold with the chat an throwin ya $50
when ya lose an they do
that alot an they do have great
customer support but is that why you
play at a casino or do you play to
win?

I play to win I deposit there once a month
I might partake in a tourney here an there
but to me I would rather cashout then chat
this is my opnion

Cindy

 

[happygobrokey]

I personally think it should stay the way it is
you have the USA players that are limited as to where
they may play
so in some ways he would have to do 2

1 for the USA players
an 1 for the players that can play anywhere

this is unnecessary. USA is not the the be-all, end-all. just because the best one of a group of things does not cater to america does not make the thing any worse, especially not to everyone else who can use it. or that an inferior thing in the group should not get more status based on that it allows americans. in a close race between two things where one is more accessible then it may be an appreciable factor.

the USA players have to take what they can get. are there even a great many choices that are both accredited and allow US? i mean, 32red is the best microgaming because it's the best. not allowing US should not tarnish its reputation (unless they would be disallowing customers for a bigoted rather than legal reason).

3Dice is a good casino they have struck
gold with the chat an throwin ya $50
when ya lose an they do
that alot an they do have great
customer support but is that why you
play at a casino or do you play to
win?

I play to win I deposit there once a month
I might partake in a tourney here an there
but to me I would rather cashout then chat
this is my opnion

Cindy

not sure how you can choose when you win. and it's unfounded to say that the games play any different from one place to another, especially when the software is identical. the only change is the colour of the table lol.

also if 3dice is specifically being called out on that, i suspect this is because the slots have high variance. you may not get a bonus round or balance worthy of cashing out often, but when you hit it will be for bigger as well. if you played forever the house gets only its mathematical cut from the game, and if you play for a short time it's feast or famine. and it's tough to go from a famine to a feast because you have less to work with. and if it's not in relation to slots, then what's the difference playing bj at 3dice versus the analogue of that same game in microgaming's platform? if the rules are the same, the game pays the same. no?

and the chat and tourneys are for when you don't have money. what other online casino is there reason to be at if you're broke? that feature is worth way more than the triviality of whether US is allowed. and you can brag real time if you're winning too and have people pat you on the back, or feel your pain with you if you are broke. anything you can do to retain some brand loyalty in the casino world is what dice is thinking.

plus it's more like being in an actual casino because people can congregate in the chat room with other patrons rather than being isolated from the rest of the players of the games. i mean you can't go spy over anyone's shoulder at their game, and i don't know if multiplayer tables are available for some/any games, but it still adds to the social element of gambling which was lost by taking the game to a person's home computer.

didn't mean to tear your post apart and i see you finished with saying it's just your opinion, but i fail to see any weight behind the premises that would give one such an opinion. tell me the reasoning behind "wouldn't you want to play somewhere you can win?" that's me paraphrasing but please i'd like to know which are the ones people can consistently win at and what makes them more beatable. sounds like something i hear on those late-night infomercials. using joe schmoe's tips of the trade you can buy houses out of foreclosure for 400 dollars and turn around and sell them for upwards of 250k. i made eighty thousand dollars last month and it's all thanks to joe schmoe and his steps-to-internet-investment-and-real-estate-success.



NOTE: ftr, the ad in the middle of the accredited list is now flashblocked. thank you if you modified it, or else my system maybe now got trained to it?