eCOGRA: Q & A with Andrew Beveridge

[Pinababy69]

When is Mr. Beveridge supposed to answer your questions?

Hey lots0, it will be next week sometime I think. More than likely the end of the week. He didn't get them until late Thursday, and he did already say that this coming week was a busy one for him. He should have had them the beginning of last week, but I was busy too....and didn't have it ready.

[dominique]

Hey Dom, here is the term, as it was on their website at that time.

TERMINATION IS AT WILL, FOR ANY REASON, BY EITHER PARTY.

The Webmaster (Affiliate) will not be entitled to referral fees occurring after the date of termination.

I know that some can argue that it is open to interpretation. In my mind, it is clearly an FU clause, which is the type of thing that players have been dealing with for ages...yet one which many affiliates have never taken into consideration when deciding which programs to promote (ie. is the casino arm of the program fair to players, in all aspects of their operation, including T&C's).

This is indeed a common clause used all over the business world to discourage lawsuits.

These clauses do not stand up in court. The contract always stands once the contracted item has been delivered. Delivered items have to be paid for.

Items delivered after termination do not have to be paid for.

If the courts did not uphold this law, just imagine what a mess everything would be. It would be impossible to conduct business, anyone could refuse payment at any time.

[aksana]

Thanks Pinababy for all your work. I'm not familiar with Andrew Beveridge, but I have already contacted Tex Rees to explain me why Belle Rock Entertainment is approved by eCogra.

Earlier, I thought eCogra was a fair independent watchdog and for me it was a very serious step when I sent a request to eCogra to review my site. But now I see it was not so important than I thought.

[spiderlegz]

This is indeed a common clause used all over the business world to discourage lawsuits.

These clauses do not stand up in court. The contract always stands once the contracted item has been delivered. Delivered items have to be paid for.

Items delivered after termination do not have to be paid for.

If the courts did not uphold this law, just imagine what a mess everything would be. It would be impossible to conduct business, anyone could refuse payment at any time.

Sorry for derailing but where would you take it to court? Most T&Cs for players would not stand up in court either yet when they are used you usually get answers like "you accepted the terms when you signed up".

Sucks to be in the same boat as players, doesnt it?

It was wrong and I dont accept it either. Now off to see Blackhawks run over Redwings

[dominique]

Don't forget that most affs are players too.

[Pinababy69]

Thanks Pinababy for all your work. I'm not familiar with Andrew Beveridge, but I have already contacted Tex Rees to explain me why Belle Rock Entertainment is approved by eCogra.

Hi Aksana, would you care to elaborate on your problems with Belle Rock? I'm no fan of theirs either, and personally don't play at their casinos, but I'm just really picky, lol. I'm curious what problems you've had with them, and why you think they shouldn't carry an eCOGRA seal? Thanks.

Sorry for derailing but where would you take it to court? Most T&Cs for players would not stand up in court either yet when they are used you usually get answers like "you accepted the terms when you signed up".

Sucks to be in the same boat as players, doesnt it?

It was wrong and I dont accept it either. Now off to see Blackhawks run over Redwings

Completely agree Spider. And Dom, I don't think that two wrongs make a right...but clauses such as these are EXACTLY what players have been dealing with for years. And I would love to see affiliates pay more attention to not only T&C's within their own contracts, but to the T&C's that players are expected to abide by.

As Spider said, it's wrong for both...and I doubt that any terms such as these would stand up in court, against player or affiliate.

[aksana]

Hi Aksana, would you care to elaborate on your problems with Belle Rock? I'm no fan of theirs either, and personally don't play at their casinos, but I'm just really picky, lol. I'm curious what problems you've had with them, and why you think they shouldn't carry an eCOGRA seal? Thanks.

Oh, no, it's a misprint, I thought about Grand Prive's casinos, but wrote Belle Rock here, because in the same time I was updating my reviews of their casinos.

[KasinoKing]

TERMINATION IS AT WILL, FOR ANY REASON, BY EITHER PARTY.

The Webmaster (Affiliate) will not be entitled to referral fees occurring after the date of termination.

That's a rather ambiguous sentence which could be interpreted in many different ways.
If they had said "...will not be entitled to referral fees accrued after the date of termination." it would have been crystal clear.

But in it's original form I read it as "...will not be entitled to fees for referrals occurring after the date of termination." which is totally different.


BTW, for anyone confused how players could take advantage of this:

INTERWETTEN

In February of 2008, Interwetten ran a 10% cashback promotion ($10 bonus for each $100 lost) for blackjack players. There were problems the second weekend, and any players who had made a profit, had their winnings voided and accounts locked. The casino claimed a technical malfunction, even though the identical promo had run and been honored the weekend before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the casino screwed up by giving the cash back on all lost bets, and not on the nett loss as it should have been.
i.e. A player could start with say $2,000, wager $100,000 and still end up with $2,000 at the end. His nett loss = $0, but the cashback was applied to each hand he lost in the process, which could have been up to $50,000 in this example, earning the player $5,000. (Playing Blackjack with this promotion would increase the players overall return by almost 5%).
The upshot was the players were punished for the casino's cock-up.

KK

[DiamondGeezer]

KK you are wrong about Interwetten. IW advertised it as being a refund on every bet lost. The wording was very clear. They also paid everyone that way on the first week the promotion ran.

This was the wording:



Sunday Cashback Madness

How it works:

For every EUR 100,00 you lose at the Interwetten Online Casino, you get EUR 10,00 back.

Terms and Conditions:

This promotion is valid to all Interwetten Casino Real Money customers.
Promotion days in February 2008 are:

Sunday, 03.02.2008 00:00 CET bis 23:59 CET
Sunday, 10.02.2008 00:00 CET bis 23:59 CET
Sunday, 17.02.2008 00:00 CET bis 23:59 CET
Sunday, 24.02.2008 00:00 CET bis 23:59 CET

This promotion is subject to Interwetten Casino standard rules, terms and conditions.

To qualify for the cashback bonus you must make a transfer of funds from your Sportsbook real money account in to Casino chips and wager at least EUR 100,00 on the respective promotion day at Interwetten Online Casino.

For each EUR 100,00 loss at the Interwetten Online Casino, the customer will get EUR 10,00 Chips credited to his Interwetten Casino account.

The bonus will be credited to the customers account on one of the following days. There are no wager requirements for the Cashback Bonus.

Interwetten Casino reserves the right to refuse all promotions and bonuses to players who do not comply with this condition.

Interwetten may cancel, terminate, modify or suspend the promotion or these terms and conditions at any point and for any reason, including for technical reasons such as and not limited to computer viruses, bugs, tampering or technical failures.

We will remove prize credits from the account of any member who fails to comply with any of the above conditions.

Management decision is final. No discussion will be entered into.


Despite the advangage being huge it was no certainty atall that you could profit from it. You could only hope to do well by making big bets and hey we know what BJ is like . Some players lost heavily and they kept the money while others won and they removed both winnings and bonus.

If that wasn't bad enough they then ignored everyone and hoped it would all go away - which thanks to the LGA 'investigation' it did.

[dominique]

And Dom, I don't think that two wrongs make a right...but clauses such as these are EXACTLY what players have been dealing with for years. And I would love to see affiliates pay more attention to not only T&C's within their own contracts, but to the T&C's that players are expected to abide by.

These clauses are everywhere, players, affs, and most any contract you sign that includes activity from two parties.

They are designed to keep people from suing. Legally, they do not release anyone from paying for what is delivered up to the date of cancellation of contract, no matter how it's worded.