Bonus Abuser Blacklist (Microgaming)

[RobWin]

Actually, I'm not so sure of this, unless they have similar ownership. I don't think it would be shared across ownership lines, unless for other reasons such as the Nevada Gaming Board's own blacklist - and that's not operator, that's jurisdiction.

http://gaming.nv.gov/loep_main.htm

Yea, you may be right about the Gaming Board or a jurisdiction issue. I'm not exactly sure about that one either. My dad worked in security at Harrah's properties for years and then moved over to The Resorts property (different corporate ownership) and had mentioned to me before that they shared the same lists but that's really as far as my knowledge goes on that.

[funky_seagull]

Irrelevant. Just because Mazda has ABS doesn't mean that Skoda do. Nor is it very likely either.


Playtech is a software provider. Unfortunately, they are not a member of eCOGRA nor any other regulatory body other than the jurisdictions of the individual operators. A complaint should go to these jurisdictions - not to the software provider.

Microsoft is a software provider. If said software is used in ways it was not intended, do you go to Microsoft, or do you go to the constabulary?

Volkswagen is an automobile manufacturer. If their car is involved in an accident because it was not driven as intended (ie. over the speed limit), do you complain to VW?

Let's get this straight once and for all. Address your complaints to the right place and they deserve to be addressed. Complaints to Playtech, or to any software provider, should only be a last resort after NORMAL methods (ie. operator and jurisdiction) are exhausted.

As harsh as that sounds, that's the way most things work.



Playtech is not a police force. It is a software provider. Please see above. Furthermore, to the best of my recollection, it has never said that any "whole thing" is a conspiracy. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, and btw, Playtech never says anything anyhow



Sheesh. Playtech is not under any obligation to prove it has this or that, and the same goes for any other software provider - with the SOLE exception that they must prove their software operates according to industry standards and only when reasonable doubt exists.

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

[vinylweatherman]

Dont know about there being a central blacklist for Playtech but definitely some Playtech casinos shared a database and this was the same with RTG. I was once denied registering at a Playtech casino and when I asked support the reason given was they branded me a bonus abuser. I cant remember which one it was though. The funny thing was that, at that time I was still able to register and play at several other Playtechs. It was the same thing at RTG and the casino Powerbet made the same accusation. Lucky for me though as I didnt know they were rogue.

As for MG, I cannot recall any casino branding me for such behaviour so for me I never knew such a blacklist existed. In fact, I have never been denied any match bonuses on signing up.

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

[spearmaster]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

Yes, they might care from a personal or corporate standpoint - but no, it is still not their business to interfere, just as Microsoft doesn't tell you what to do with Windows or Office (though Microsoft's license actually allows them to do so).

One has to draw a line somewhere - I used to think software manufacturers should get involved too, but once I realized the distinction I understood. With Microgaming, at least you have eCOGRA to assist.

[sdaddy]

While circumstantial, if there is no link between the casino who brands a player "bonus abuser" and other casinos they have played at, this is pretty much a "central" database, rather than an "in house" database. It is not necessary for EVERY casino to share the central database, as with Rival, there are a handful who have decided to get rid of the central database where it comes to flagging "promotional abuse", although presumably they will still use it for identifying fraud.

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilizing the services of Playtech.

[vinylweatherman]

The strongest evidence I'm aware of for this shared "central" database of bonus abusers among Playtech casinos comes from the T&C of one of it's licensees, Class 1 Casino:

The Casino reserves the right to bar any promotion abusers from receiving any further promotions at CLASS 1 CASINO, as well as the right to pass on any information regarding known abusers to Playtech. This will ensure that they will be barred from promotions at all Casinos utilising the services of Playtech.

EXACTLY!

This clearly indicates that they pass such information "to Playtech", which indicates at the very least that Playtech has some kind of scheme in place to receive such information from it's licensees.
If one were instantly banned at an unrelated casino after playing at a Playtech casino with this kind of term, the BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES is that said term describes the process by which the information has circulated.

If this is not the case, then Class 1 casino has landed Playtech in the proverbial by implying it is Playtech that receive the information, as opposed to another party that might be running some kind of "blacklist" system.
If this is damaging to them, Playtech should REQUIRE the REMOVAL of the phrase "to Playtech" in such licensee terms, so that Playtech are not represented as the operator of such a database.

It is terms like this in Playtech casinos that has me strongly of the opinion that Playtech (maybe through an arms-length subsidiary) do indeed operate a central database of "high risk players", and that not only fraud, but "promotion abuse" is being tracked.

This is exactly like the terms we are seeing in MGS casinos, and here there seems little dissent about whether there is an MGS central "promotion abuse" database.

[spearmaster]

I am pretty certain that Playtech is not in a position to receive such information. The fact that a "right" is reserved does not mean that such right actually exists.

That being said - I agree the casino should not be making such a representation and that perhaps Playtech themselves may want to look into it - so no harm sending an email to them through their website. And if they don't respond - you've done your bit.

[jetset]

I disagree I think it should be part of their business to care. If they want to create gambling software then they have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of doing so.

I avoid RTG casinos because they in my mind have become associated with dodgy casinos. Playtech should care about who they license their software to, and make damn well sure they aren't a dodgy outfit or do anything dodgy else pull the plug on the dodgy casino.

To me it just stinks of greed and wanting the money and not really caring whom is licensed as long as they pay the software provider lets them do what they like.

The problem for playtech is, like RTG if they don't do anything about dodgy casinos who use their software eventually players will be put off playing them as they will equate playtech with dodgy. Playtech would be better off getting a good reputation for themselves by being a software provider who cares about the way the casinos they license their software to behave.

This isn't about cars, this is about people risking their money on games of chance and trusting the software and casinos they place their bets with. If someone wants to make a living out of licensing gambling software, they need to be strict about whom they license to and not just think about the money.

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

[RobWin]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Exactly, also the same way GM (General Motors) pays attention to offensive or dishonest GM car dealerships as I have had to actually go to GM in the past to get a problem resolved that the dealership continuously tried to blow me off on and would not address the problem...GM saw to it that the problem was fixed and resolved to my satisfaction, since they were the one's that were backing the dealership with THEIR PRODUCT.

[spearmaster]

I'm afraid I have to support Funky Seagull here in opposition to the view expressed by my old mate Spear.

There may not be a formal legal obligation on the software provider (and the lawyers have probably insulated them as usual anyway) but for moral and practical reasons as outlined above by Funky there is a very real need for them to be aware of what their licensees are doing, and where necessary police (or if you prefer "guide") them to the path of righteousness!

Reputable, in-it-for-the-long-haul software providers know this and pay attention to offensive or dishonest licensee reports.

Others not so. We can all think of software providers we would rather avoid because the behaviour of their licensees is outrageous. Relying on new blood or not, reputation is a precious thing and only the short-sighted ignore this.

The bottom line is that bad customer perceptions are not good for overall business.

However, the preference may be for more behind-the-scenes activity by the software provider in these matters for obvious reasons.

I therefore suggest that notifications of bad behaviour by licensees should be sent to software providers and publicised widely as additional pressure when a player is being blown off.

It works more often than not.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing

However, I should point out that I did say:

Software providers - both Microgaming and Playtech - have been known to step in where there is a clear problem such as blatant fraud or insolvency. It could thus be said that they are meeting any such moral obligation.

What some may consider "bad behaviour" may not appear the same way to others. I fully agree that ultimately there is some moral obligation - but there is still going to be the issue of exactly what is considered to have crossed the moral line.

I also agree that they need to care - particularly as I have a background in brand and crisis management - but again they still have to do so with limited resources, they can't be expected to monitor every casino all the time on any issue that comes up.

As I have pointed out before, Microsoft cannot be expected to monitor any and all usage of its software products, just as Volkswagen cannot be expected to do the same with its vehicles. The best they can do, barring any obvious or urgent issue, is release the best possible product they can.

So perhaps it's best to say that there IS agreement on moral responsibility - but NOT on exactly what constitutes a breach of morality.