eCOGRA: Q & A with Andrew Beveridge

[KasinoKing]

KK you are wrong about Interwetten. IW advertised it as being a refund on every bet lost.

That's what I said. isn't it?

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 wasn't saying their actions were different to the terms, but that the whole bonus was screwed up right from the beginning - including the T&C's.

KK

[AussieDave]

Excellent thread Pina and that goes for everyone else too!

Just don't say the "S" word

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.

I agree.. But I think peeps (players) also need to know that not all affiliates are driven by the dollar$. Like dodgy casinos there are also affs who don't care who they promote. Fortunately there are those who do.

This is one drum I've been beating over at the GPWA for years now.

Cheers
T

[Pinababy69]

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have received Andrew's answers. I'm going to make a tea, and give it a good read (it's pretty lengthy), and then I'll post them. Rob, I guess it will be me, lol.

I myself am not going to make any comments initially...I'm just going to make the post with the questions and answers, and let everyone have a read. I'll be curious to see the feedback. One thing I do have to say is that IMO, he spent some time on this. It isn't something he just threw together.

I sensed he was as transparent and candid as he could be, and actually moreso than I thought he would be. That's my opinion, after a quick skim of the document.

He has said that I'm welcome to send him any follow up questions. If there is anything specific that anyone wants to know about, post your questions here....and in a week or so, I'll follow up on it.

Thanks again Andrew. I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into this. And thanks for your input Rusty.

[Pinababy69]

Before I proceed to answer your questions, I’d like to emphasise that eCOGRA protects the player in three main ways - it creates a safer playing environment by maintaining internationally appropriate best practice business and integrity standards at its accredited online gambling operations; it guides players to those establishments where it is confident they will be well treated, and it provides a free and impartial mediating service to handle any disputes.

Our mandate is not to moralise generally and subjectively over issues, but to objectively ensure that a fair and professional regime of standards is in place, and is complied with, by major companies that have made the considerable commitment that accreditation by eCOGRA demands.

Although three major and competing companies provided the substantial funding to get eCOGRA off the ground six years ago, the intention was always that the non-profit organisation would in time become independently self-funding, and we are currently on the threshold of that achievement, with only 8 percent of funding coming from bwin, 888 and Microgaming in the way of members’ fees and the balance derived from professional fees from both accredited companies and a growing number of external companies who see value in our range of business services.

INTERWETTEN

1. Was eCOGRA aware of the player complaints regarding Interwetten?

Yes, we monitor the Casinomeister forum constantly as we see it as a valuable source for identifying issues with existing and potential sealholders, and a number of players also contacted us about this problem around the time it happened.

2. Was the seal awarded to just the poker room? Or poker and casino?

Our seal was awarded to Interwetten’s poker room on 14 April 2008 and to their casino on 28 January 2009 – a year and a software provider on from the Chartwell Tech incident.

In January 2008 the seal was displayed on the Interwetten homepage which provides access to all their products (casino, poker and sportsbook), but the certificate which is displayed when the seal is clicked clearly stated that only the poker operations had been awarded the seal at that time.

We try to insist that the seal is not displayed on sites from where non-approved products are accessed, however this is something which needs to be constantly monitored and Interwetten did subsequently sort this out.

It is very important that if players want the assurances that the eCOGRA seal affords, they should check the validity of the seal and which operations have been reviewed by clicking through to the linked certificate. Players can also verify this on the eCOGRA site at www.ecogra.org/approved. My staff and I always welcome reports of any irregularities in this respect from the player community.

3. Even if the seal were awarded to only the poker room, is it still the same ownership/management/policies, etc? How do you justify awarding a Play It Safe seal to a company with this many outstanding player complaints?

In this instance, it is the same ownership/management/policies, but this is obviously not always the case with all the operators we review. This is one of the reasons that our seal is always specific to particular URL’s and products we have actually reviewed, and we are very careful not to imply that it applies to all products and sites which might be seen to be associated with a particular operator, regardless of whether or not we have reviewed the URL’s and products.

Some background information on the review process might be helpful at this point. eCOGRA certification is about self-regulation, and although we encourage the operators to submit all their products and sites for review, ultimately it is at their discretion which sites and products are submitted. We ensure that detailed planning before hand is undertaken, and we insist upon visiting every appropriate location in order to review all operations relevant to the specifically requested products and sites, and typically our auditors will spend about a week onsite at the various operations.

While onsite the auditors, who are usually qualified Chartered Accountants with online gambling industry experience, ensure every relevant aspect of the operations applicable to the eGAP standards is reviewed.

These auditors also provide guidance and best practice documentation to the operators to assist with closing non-compliant areas and improving business efficiencies, and one month following the review issue a detailed report identifying weaknesses and non-compliant issues.

Casino or poker room management is then required to respond in writing to these findings, and where necessary provide evidence of steps taken to achieve compliance.

Once we are satisfied that full compliance has been achieved, a report is submitted to eCOGRA’s Seals Compliance Committee, comprised of the Independent Directors on our Board, and the results are discussed in a meeting with all Committee members present and the head of our Compliance and Advisory Services Department. If all are agreed, the Committee will award the Safe & Fair seal to only those sites and products that have been reviewed and found to be fully compliant with the standards.

I would estimate that for each operator this process annually involves at least 150 man hours of eCOGRA’s staff time, and sometimes double this amount during initial reviews. This does not include the time we also invest to ensure that the software suppliers behind each of the products are also compliant with our standards.

I trust you can therefore appreciate that when we issue our seal to a particular site, it is because we have done everything reasonably possible to ensure compliance with the eGAP standards. We cannot be expected to provide assurances and assistance to players for those sites which operators either don’t want us to review or are not committed to our standards.

Back to your question about why we awarded a casino seal to Interwetten with ‘many outstanding complaints’.

At the time the problem was reported, which was a year prior to us issuing a casino seal to Interwetten, we were in contact immediately with Interwetten’s senior management to better understand the situation. After considerable discussion, and careful attention to the public debates and input from the affected players, we were comfortable that this was in fact a software malfunction which resulted in players being credited bonuses in a manner which was not in accordance with the T&C’s, and under the T&C’s the casino was entitled to withhold the winnings in the event of such a malfunction.

There was therefore no infringement of eCOGRA requirements.

Since first certifying Interwetten’s poker operations in April 2008, followed by the casino operations in January 2009, we’ve received only 3 disputes (which were for poker) which were unrelated to this particular issue. This is remarkable given the substantial size of the operation and the number of players and daily transactions.

It is also worth noting that Interwetten’s casino, poker and sportsbetting operations were again reviewed by eCOGRA in October 2008, and as a result of this latest review Interwetten has the distinction of being the first operator in over 100 audits to be issued a clean report with no areas of non-compliance requiring rectification prior to renewing the seal. I believe they are currently an extremely worthy sealholder and a credit to eCOGRA.

4. The casino itself now definitely falls under the eCOGRA umbrella. Given the fact that you "certified" this operation while these complaints were outstanding, would you be willing to revisit this issue with the 15 or so players who were affected by this?

I’m afraid not. On the basis of our own investigations and those of the Lotteries and Gaming Authority of Malta, we are comfortable that the casino was within its rights to act in the manner it did, and we have not been given any subsequent justification to question management’s integrity or representations made in relation to this matter. We will continue to carefully monitor this operator going forward.

CASINO ACTION/TUSK

1. Were you aware of the dire situation that CA/Tusk was in financially?

Shortly before we suspended the Casino Action seals, our onsite review which was performed as part of our normal seal renewal procedure at the operations for the casinos identified the fact that there was potentially a liquidity problem.

2. Why did eCOGRA not think it acceptable to give more of an explanation when the seals were revoked? Do they not believe that the player community has a right to know when their funds are at risk?

Indications suggested there may be problems that merited suspending the seals, mainly for the protection of the players, although the indicators were not at that time of sufficient clarity to justify a general public warning. We suspended the seal pending further investigation into a specific area of non-compliance, and to give the operator an opportunity to provide us with the necessary assurance that there was actually full compliance with the standards. The operator made a concerted effort to achieve compliance, but ultimately this wasn’t resolved, the suspected problems proved to be real and overwhelming, and the company entered into a liquidation process.

I trust it is appreciated that matters of this nature are very carefully considered by eCOGRA’s Independent Directors, who have been appointed to this position based on their industry experience, integrity and ability to make the right decisions under each particular set of circumstances for the players. They are simply not going to willingly make decisions to the detriment of the players and their personal reputations.

3. There had been mention of an NDA (non-disclosure agreement), and this being the possible reason why you could not provide us (players) with more information. Are there NDA's in place that prevent you from disclosing these issues to the player community, prior to the company actually folding?

We are governed by NDA’s with the operators we review precluding us from releasing certain unauthorised information, as obviously our staff are privy to very sensitive operating and financial information. Any announcements we make need to be made balancing the constraints of the NDA’s with the need to properly inform the players of the appropriate findings.

4. If the answer to the above is yes, then how can you protect the players from this ever happening again?

We clearly can’t give the players the guarantee that something like this will never happen again. What we can do though is assure the players that we will do everything reasonably possible to ensure that sealholders are always in compliance with our standards, and if we do become aware of a high risk area of non-compliance, our Independent Directors will take appropriate steps to ensure the players receive the best possible protection under the circumstances, usually through the suspension of the seals and an announcement that offers as much information as we can legally and sensibly impart.

5. While the casino players have been taken care of, the poker players affected are perhaps going to get 20% of their account balances returned to them, via the liquidators named to the case. At least one poker room, Arctic Poker, was a member of eCOGRA when the seals were revoked. How can you expect players in the future to have confidence that eCOGRA will protect them, when the only explanation players were given for revoking Arctic Poker's seal was "non-compliance with eGAP policy"?

Arctic Poker was not an eCOGRA sealholder at the time the seals were suspended. We made this clear in our first statement relating to this issue dated 15 February 2008.

6. eCOGRA is advertised as being in the business of player protection, not casino protection. What assurances do we have that if this whole scenario repeats itself in the future, that players will be protected? The players from Arctic Poker were certainly not helped in any way by the poker room they chose to play at, having an eCOGRA seal.

We can only offer effective protection at those sites which we have been requested to review by the operators, and are confirmed by us to be compliant with the standards. If we don’t have a thorough knowledge about a particular product or site obtained through rigorous professional review, and sufficient comfort that there is compliance with our standards, unfortunately it would be a very risky proposition for us to offer any assurances.

7. If these same operators popped up again in the future, wanting to open a new casino/poker room, would you consider certifying them again, given their past mistakes and mismanagement of funds?

It is difficult for me to say, as a decision of this nature would be left to our Independent Directors and the Seals Compliance Committee. Given these past events and the fact that there would be poker players still out there who have gone unpaid, I would say further certification is highly unlikely!

GRAND PRIVE

1. Do you view the GP affiliate program and the GP casinos as two different entities?

Our eGAP standards applicable to casinos don’t provide any assurances in relation to the fair treatment of affiliates. This seal is clearly intended to convey only to players where they will be protected.

Equally, if it were alleged that Grand Prive hadn’t paid their advertising agency’s fees, or any other third party creditor not covered by the eGAP standards, their casinos would not lose their Safe & Fair seals.

For this reason we have also developed a separate set of standards specific to affiliate programs (www.ecogra.org/affiliates), but it is up to the affiliate programs to request the affiliate seal which will only be awarded once we have performed a thorough investigation of their operations to ensure they are meeting the standards that have been specifically developed for this sector. And if affiliates want to rely on our assurances with regards to these programs, then they need to make sure they choose the programs that have gone the extra mile to get certified.

2. Considering how unethical it is for the GP affiliate program to treat its business partners in this matter, what assurances does the player have that the casino side of the business will treat its players any better?

I have had various discussions with Grand Prive’s management to understand what transpired with their affiliate program, and I don’t believe all the facts are properly understood by the affiliate community.

I am of the opinion that Grand Prive would have been judged less harshly if a certain ‘watchdog’ in the affiliate community had taken advantage of Grand Prive’s offer to explain their side of the story.

We have had a 6 year relationship with Grand Prive, because this was one of the very first operators to apply for our seal in 2003. As with most of the eCOGRA operators that have been awarded the seal for so many years, there have been incidents where we’ve had to work with this operator to address player disputes. However, based on their ongoing maintenance of the eCOGRA standards, we have no reason to believe that the players are at risk.

3. Was the removal of the seals from the casinos ever considered when it was revealed what the affiliate program was planning on doing?

No, because I don’t believe Grand Prive’s actions are properly understood, we haven’t investigated this incident fully because it is not part of our mandate, and most significantly contractual obligations towards affiliates do not form part of the eGAP standards applicable to casinos.

4. Grand Prive opened a new casino called Villa Fortuna, and a new affiliate program, Villa Fortuna Affiliates, catering to the European/UK market. eCOGRA has recently gotten involved in certifying affiliate programs (Roxy and Fortune Lounge at present). Would you ever consider awarding a seal to VF Affiliates, given the unethical business practice of GP Affiliates? If so, how do you explain that to affiliates who were affected by the GP mess?
Should Villa Fortuna Affiliates apply for our seal, we would require a full investigation into the GP Affiliate issue. Only after the investigation has taken place would we be in a reasonable position to judge GP’s actions with regards to these affiliates. We would also require a full review of Villa Fortuna’s affiliate program before the seal could be considered.

5. Do you believe that casinos and their affiliate companies should be judged together, or individually? Do you believe that the industry as a whole, would be better off (and more legitimate), if everyone (regulatory bodies/agencies, industry advocates, webmasters, players, etc) considered all aspects of a company's business prior to awarding certification or a stamp of approval?

The industry would definitely be better off if every aspect of a company’s business could be considered prior to certification. But this would become prohibitively expensive and onerous for the operators and software suppliers, unless a very light touch in terms of review work were to be adopted. eCOGRA was established to ensure player protection, and in order to achieve this effectively we need to be able to focus on those issues which are most important to the players themselves and are directly under the control of those parts of the business that have elected to be subjected to self-regulation.

As the software suppliers play a significant and critical role in making sure the games are fair and that the operators provide adequate player protection, we won’t award our seal to an operator whose gaming software hasn’t also been reviewed against our standards.

However, it is not practical to cover every aspect of the operators’ business, such as verification software, payment processors, affiliate programs and other third party marketing agencies, because it is often very difficult to get the commitment from these parts of the business to be subjected to such a time consuming and costly exercise.

Equally with our new affiliate program reviews, although we require the affiliate program software to be reviewed, it would be impractical for us to insist that every one of the promoted products and websites should also always be fully compliant with our standards applicable to gambling products and gambling software providers.

REPUTABLE PORTAL SITES

I think it would be helpful if I provided some history of this initiative first. In 2004 we contacted a number of leading portals to provide guidance to eCOGRA management on matters of player protection. We met regularly and we learnt a lot from these webmasters, and to give something back for their efforts we listed these sites on the eCOGRA website as ‘Reputable Portals’, which they undoubtedly were and are still. A little while later we began corresponding with other helpful webmasters representing some very good gaming portals, and they requested us to include them in the list too. As a result of this we developed a set of criteria for inclusion on this list, and we outsourced the initial and ongoing reviews of these sites to an independent contractor.

This arrangement worked very well until we started to become inundated with applications for inclusion on the list as eCOGRA’s activities became more widely known. Ultimately the cost of using an independent contractor to review the sites became prohibitively expensive and we decided to take the task in-house.

We are currently receiving on average more than one application a day from webmasters requesting association with eCOGRA, and each application is scrutinised prior to being listed. We turn down many of these applications that don’t meet with our linking criteria.

However what we are neglecting to do is monitor this list regularly, and this is resulting in new content being displayed on these sites which no longer meets our criteria. Our assertion that sites will be inspected at least monthly is now incorrect and simply not possible, and will be amended.

I acknowledge that this initiative has grown well beyond our initial intentions and needs to be reorganised. About a month ago we did initiate some changes which will improve the situation, and these are currently being implemented. But as you correctly point out, some of these sites are now by no means ‘reputable’ and I have asked my colleagues to perform a thorough review of all listed sites and ensure every site either complies fully with the criteria or is promptly removed.

In this context, once again we would welcome reports from the affiliate community (which seems to be the sector most interested in our activities with other webmasters like this) on sites which they do not feel we should be associated with. I undertake to consider these seriously.

We’ve also considered scrapping our Reputable Portal section entirely, however I’m reluctant to do this because it is a very effective way of informing players about the role eCOGRA plays and heightening awareness of how we can help.

1. In respect to the monthly inspections, who are the independent contractors that perform this duty? Do they have any knowledge of online gaming, and what constitutes a rogue operation?

As mentioned above, the initial and ongoing checks are now done in-house. We use Casinomeister as a guide for rogue operations, as well as our own knowledge and research.

2. Given what I've posted above, are you satisfied that these contractors are doing an adequate job?

I’m definitely not comfortable with the fact that we aren’t managing to review these sites as regularly as I would like for new content that doesn’t meet our criteria. However, with over 200 sites now listed, we will need to find a more practical and cost effective method of making sure on an ongoing basis that the displayed content is appropriate.

3. The second site I mentioned has links to gambling tools and systems. Any savvy player knows that there is no system that is going to allow you to consistently beat a casino and house advantage. Many are nothing more than scams to bilk yet more money out of unknowing players. Do you think that by linking to sites such as this, it lessens your own credibility in the player protection arena?

This site does not meet the criteria and will be removed from the list (along with any others that do not meet our criteria).

4. Would you agree that this aspect of your operation needs a lot more work and time devoted, for it to truly represent a list of "reputable" sites? Are you planning on ramping up the inspection procedure to ensure that this happens?

Yes.

5. What is the purpose of exchanging links to sites such as these? Many people/players believe that it is nothing more than self-promotion, with no actual value. What do you think you can do to change this perception?

For some reason not apparent to me, it seems to be mainly affiliates who take exception to what we view as a legitimate and ongoing project to spread awareness of eCOGRA and what it can do to assist the player. I acknowledge that this needs considerable attention, and we need to take additional steps to ensure that we are not seen to be endorsing other information displayed by these portals which is potentially harmful to players.

6. Have you ever considered asking the player community for help in matters such as this? Perhaps a "player liaison" (unpaid position) would lend some credibility to the claim that player protection is your primary goal. Any thoughts on this?

Any input of this nature is always most welcome and will receive serious attention.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. What safeguards, if any, for the player does eCOGRA offer that a site's licensing authority does not?

Our efforts are designed to complement, rather than compete with, the efforts of the jurisdictions. I’m not entirely familiar with each jurisdiction’s specific regulations and how effectively they are being implemented and monitored, but as with any industry offering a contentious product which is potentially harmful to parts of the public, self-regulation can only be a good thing for the consumers.

Our industry is characterised by rapid innovation and the introduction of new products and technologies. eCOGRA is structured in such a way that it has the flexibility to quickly introduce new standards and product areas for review to ensure that the player has a comprehensive level of protection.

The eCOGRA seal is evidence that the operator is willing to go the extra mile for the players by being subjected to an exhaustive review process to ensure compliance with a set of player-oriented standards, and in the event that the player has a grievance, in addition to the licensing jurisdiction the player can also contact our Fair Gaming Advocate for mediation.

There can be little doubt that the services of the Fair Gaming Advocate have been widely used by players over the past six years, often to their advantage in disputes with accredited operations.

2. How is eCOGRA funded and is it a profit making organization?

eCOGRA is constituted by law as a non-profit organisation in the United Kingdom. Currently the founding software suppliers (888, bwin and Microgaming) members’ fees in total amount to 8% of the organisation’s total funding requirements. The other 92% is derived from fees from review work involving over 50 different software suppliers and operators, including related businesses and associations beyond our accredited list.

3. Are there any plans to make eCOGRA funding more transparent?

I think we have always been transparent about the funding, and made it clear that the organisation was initially fully funded by the founding software suppliers. I expect we will be fully self-funding in the not too distant future.

4. Does eCOGRA have any plans to have auditing done by an independent third party?

I’m assuming you mean independent of eCOGRA, since our audit team is effectively totally independent of the companies we service.

Initially we used PwC to perform the audit work, and we also considered including various other leading auditing firms on our Audit Panel. However, in late 2007 we realised that we needed to provide a review service which was less risk averse, more flexible, and a lot more cost effective than what the traditional audit firms are able to provide.

A significant part of the review process is providing consultancy type advice to the operators, in order to assist them in becoming compliant with the standards. To achieve this we need dedicated resources who are highly qualified auditors with relevant industry experience, and sufficient time available to perform thorough review and follow-up work.

One of the problems I have experienced with using audit firms is that often the allocated staff members are assigned to other audits so that they cannot attend to urgent eCOGRA review matters, or the staff move on to other jobs and need to be trained from scratch on industry matters.

As an added level of assurance to our clients and players, each year KPMG, as a recognised international accounting firm, performs a quality assurance review to ensure that the governance structure, responsibilities, processes and approach implemented within eCOGRA’s Data Services, and Compliance and Advisory departments are in line with best practice and industry requirements, and comply with recognised audit practices and principles.

5. Does a player have the right to appeal an eCOGRA decision?

Yes, we are quite simply only interested in reaching a decision on player disputes that is fair to both parties. However, we would unlikely be prepared to revisit decisions if a considerable amount of time has lapsed since the initial decision and no new information is brought to our attention.

6. What plans does eCOGRA have to improve as an organization in the future?

It is only in the past couple of years, by bringing the audit team in-house, that we have been able to effectively grow the business and provide professional services to many more software suppliers and operators.

This has enabled us to largely move on from misconceptions about eCOGRA’s independence, and we need to build on this success to get as many operators and software suppliers under an umbrella of industry self-regulation as possible.

I acknowledge that we can’t offer a service which is a perfect model for all stakeholders, and there are a few things we could possibly have done better in the past.

Like all endeavours, there is always the possibility that we will make mistakes going forward in an environment where we are involved with massive numbers of daily transactions from millions of players at some of the Internet’s biggest online gambling venues. If we do, it will certainly not be intentional and we will do everything in our power to redress any wrong and learn from the experience.

But the reality is that eCOGRA right now is the industry’s best shot at effective self-regulation, and constitutes a real benefit to the player who is at the core of our concern. We need the encouragement and support of the webmaster and player community to help ensure all online gambling operators buy in to self-regulation. This can only be good for the industry and the players.

[spiderlegz]

To quickly address some of the points he made.

Interwetten: It was not a software malfunction, I think its clear to anyone with even half of a brain.

Arctic Poker: Didnt have a seal? then what is this? from 10th feb 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/200802100...ww.ecogra.org/
Look at approved poker rooms. What do we have there? Yes, Arctic Poker.

Dear Mr.Beveridge dont underestimate our intelligence.

[lots0]

First, my personal thanks to you Mr. Beveridge for taking the time to answer these questions.

I do find it odd that Mr. Beveridge finds it necessary to use an intermediary to answer questions here. (even if she is hot in those shiny black pants... ) Is this just a way for Mr. Beveridge to avoid answering direct questions from members? Or am I missing something here?

Unfortunately, Mr. Beveridge's answers have only helped to re enforce my unfavorable opinion about Ecogra.

Blaming affiliates and 'affiliate watchdogs' for problems that these same affiliates and affiliate watchdogs have helped to expose in your licensees, funders, certified members or whatever you want to call them... Is really not very... Cricket.
Especially when those 'problems' slipped right by ecogra.

I am glad to hear that the ecogra website is going to clean it's self up...
The ecogra site has really become a gateway to some very shady websites.

The idea that ecogra is going to pick and choose what aspects of a casino business to 'license' or 'certify' is disconcerting....
What you are saying in effect is that dishonest people can run your 'certified' online casinos as long as they run 'some' parts of their casino business in what you deem to be in an ethical manner. But you don't care if your 'certified' partners are ethical in business with affiliates, other webmasters or if they are ethical in any other aspect of their business. I don't think a lot of people are gonna buy that line.

But the reality is that eCOGRA right now is the industry’s best shot at effective self-regulation...

The self regulation 'test' has had several years to show some progress... and I think most of us will agree 'self' regulation has failed miserably for the players and for the business partners of online casinos.

You can't collect a fee for 'certification', help to promote and market those you 'certify' and then call your organization independent. Well I guess you can call your organization 'independent'... But you sure as hell can't expect people to believe it.

Thank you again Mr. Beveridge for taking the time to answer these questions. I hope that next time you will be able to directly engage the members here in discussion and debate.

[Pinababy69]

To quickly address some of the points he made.

Interwetten: It was not a software malfunction, I think its clear to anyone with even half of a brain.

Arctic Poker: Didnt have a seal? then what is this? from 10th feb 2008
http://web.archive.org/web/200802100...ww.ecogra.org/
Look at approved poker rooms. What do we have there? Yes, Arctic Poker.

Dear Mr.Beveridge dont underestimate our intelligence.

Hey Spider, I agree with you re: Interwetten and it not being a software malfunction. I personally believe that the software performed exactly as it was programmed to perform. The issue was in poorly written T&C's, and that is not the fault of the player. It also doesn't explain away why the exact same promo was run in the exact, same manner as it was the weekend before, when it WAS honoured. And FTR, before I even posted his responses here, I sent him a lengthy email and told him I disagreed with his/their response on the whole issue....although admittedly quite a bit more diplomatically than you did.

I also believe there comes a point when you realize you've reached an impasse. They believe they made the right decision, I believe they're wrong. I've stated my case, and there's not much more I (or anyone) can do about that. Except to choose to never give Interwetten a dime of my money, and advise anyone I know (or who ever asked) to do the same. Affiliates still happily promote this place, and they should share some of the heat as well. But I won't get into that part of it.

Regarding Arctic Poker, I remember I nearly fell off my chair when I read the response that they weren't a seal holder at the time of the review on Casino Action. I was so sure I had checked my facts thoroughly.

Andrew provided us a further explanation this morning, which I just read and will post as his reply. It seems there was a delay on the part of eCOGRA in updating their website, and thus it was still showing Arctic Poker as a member. Arctic Poker had also been informed that they were no longer eligible to display the seal.

Andrew's response to Arctic Poker:

“I acknowledge that the Arctic Poker seal was being displayed as an approved site around the time that the Tusk seals were suspended. However this was incorrect, and this is precisely the reason we said in our initial statement on the matter that ‘It should further be noted that the operations applicable to Arctic Poker (www.arcticpoker.com) did not form part of the eCOGRA review, and therefore the seal for this site has been revoked, as the time by which it should have been reviewed has expired’. If necessary I can provide further details on our review and reporting process which will explain why there was a delay in removing the seal following the onsite review.”

[Rusty]

First of all on behalf of the forum many thanks to PinaBaby for putting so much time and effort into this.
I would also like to thank Andrew Beveridge for taking time out to address the questions and issues raised.

I found some of His answers interesting and positive but many very much like eCOGRA's suggested practices and guidelines were ambiguous and lacking substance.
Remember eGAP is an acronym for Generally accepted practices.

Much of how you feel about Mr Beveridge's response will depend on how cynical you are about eCOGRA's claim they are independent and objective.
For example take His opening statement;

[B]Before I proceed to answer your questions, I’d like to emphasise that eCOGRA protects the player in three main ways - it creates a safer playing environment by maintaining internationally appropriate best practice business and integrity standards at its accredited online gambling operations; it guides players to those establishments where it is confident they will be well treated, and it provides a free and impartial mediating service to handle any disputes[/B]

"creates a safer playing environment by maintaining internationally appropriate best practice business and integrity standards."
If that is not a pure example of a PR sound-bite that has no substance I don't know what is.
There is no real evidence it has created safer playing environment.
Internationally appropriate? Appropriate to who and how and why?
Best business practice and integrity standards (subjective)

It also guides players to the Casinos that fund their operation but that doesn't come across as well.

Obviously the impartial is still a matter of debate hence this thread.

Then;

...objectively ensure that a fair and professional regime of standards is in place, and is complied with, by major companies that have made the considerable commitment that accreditation by eCOGRA demands.

Ensure means to make certain of and how can you make certain of compliance when you only make recommendations?

What is the considerable commitment a Casino makes to eCOGRA?

This on being independently financed;

...the balance derived from professional fees from both accredited companies and a growing number of external companies who see value in our range of business services.

For accredited companies we can read Casinos so obviously the conflict of interest issue will remain until eCOGRA itself is accountable and it is motivated to be purely objective.
(Currently is it not like me paying a detective to investigate me for fraud and then discuss the evidence with me before I decide if I'm guilty or not?)

External companies? Care to elaborate on that?

On the display of the eCOGRA seal;

We try to insist that the seal is not displayed on sites from where non-approved products are accessed, however this is something which needs to be constantly monitored and Interwetten did subsequently sort this out.


Have you tried begging?
What can eCOGRA do in real terms to stop sites falsely displaying the eCOGRA seal?

OK so that is the statement from Mr Beveridge but what does the actual eCOGRA site state when it comes to a commitment to protect players?
The following statement is posted after the list of eCOGRA accredited Casinos. http://www.ecogra.org/approved.aspx?OP=O
The numbers have been inserted by myself for reference.

While eCOGRA does its utmost to ensure compliance with its principles(1), it cannot offer 100% assurance that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements. (2)Therefore eCOGRA cannot assume responsibility for the consequences resulting from the use of any Internet gaming site bearing the eCOGRA Safe and Fair seal(3). eCOGRA is not liable to any person or group of persons, firm, company or entity for losses of any description that a user of an accredited site may suffer(4). Accredited sites are subject to regular monitoring of their operation.

(1) Why can ecogra not offer assurance its approved sites operate within ecogra requirements?

what practical use to the player are eCOGRA recommendations and assurances if the player can not know if an eCOGRA approved site even operates within these recommendations?

(2)and (3) Is this statement not simply an abdication of any responsibilty by eCOGRA's for its approved sites?

In the context of this apparent abdication of responsibility and lack of assurance an eCOGRA approved site even operates within their recommendations is not the "Safe and fair seal" claim an empty One?

(4) What does monitoring mean in practice and how regular is regular?

Finally, yes finally but very importantly is the most important issue of all, are the games fair?

On the eCOGRA site there is plenty of corporate speak and technical terminology in the literature about the TGTR testing process which is supposed to ensure fair gaming but again there is no real attempt at transparency and detailing exactly what constitutes a fair game.

For example there is absolutely nothing there that would not allow the return of a slot to be changed yet still be deemed fair under the TGTR regime.

There is absolutely nothing there that prohibits weighting either.

It is more concerned with a software companies viability as a business and their financial integrity than any game-play mechanics so I for One would certainly take any statements of fair gaming with a rather large mound of salt.
Still like eCOGRA it is better than nothing but therein the problem lies.

They can overcome all the cynicism though by continuing to liaise with players (this is a good start) and taking action on the areas of concern.
Their judgments on player cases will be scrutinised and if they follow through on their promises and claims then conflict of interest concerns will gradually fade.
They need to find a way of toughening up their act and being able to guarantee compliance from their members or where transgressions occur acting swiftly, decisively and with transparence.

They have a dodgy engine,a long road ahead and it is all uphill.
Someone may have to get out and push but if they make it they will be a massive asset to all in the industry.
Still without the players they are nothing, we should all remember that.

[bb1webs]

Although three major and competing companies provided the substantial funding to get eCOGRA off the ground six years ago, the intention was always that the non-profit organisation would in time become independently self-funding, and we are currently on the threshold of that achievement

how nice to be on the threshold of profit.

Funny I don't recall there EVER being mention of ecogra becoming a for profit entity.

Do I really need to go on about what's wrong with that?

.......



I'm curious. If you folks lived in a town which was home to an outlaw would you be content to let that outlaw continue to exist there based on the fact the outlaw never did anything wrong in your town?

Perhaps some might be. To me, a killer is a killer, a thief is a thief, a rapist a rapist and so on. Doesn't matter where they choose to practice.

To say its okay for casinos to break contracts with affiliates because its not effecting players is akin.

Furthermore many players choose casinos based on the fact they have their affiliate to rely on as recourse. This recourse is out the window of course when the sponsor takes such action. Who is making the players aware that they are losing their affiliate as a means of recourse? How can one under such circumstance claim this isn't effecting the players in a negative way?

I run a cash-backed guarantee on my recommendations. Of course I pulled the guarantee way back (it has a 30 day grace period to allow players time to find out and choose another) ... but there may be those who won't find out ... tell them this didn't effect their status.


To claim the aff program is separate from the casinos is believable.

To claim that company is willingly giving up income that has already been earned is not ... the only way that would happen is if the aff program is tied into the casinos and then ... it becomes completely fathomable that they would want to cut out their partners.

[mojo]

2. Considering how unethical it is for the GP affiliate program to treat its business partners in this matter, what assurances does the player have that the casino side of the business will treat its players any better?

I have had various discussions with Grand Prive’s management to understand what transpired with their affiliate program, and I don’t believe all the facts are properly understood by the affiliate community.

I am of the opinion that Grand Prive would have been judged less harshly if a certain ‘watchdog’ in the affiliate community had taken advantage of Grand Prive’s offer to explain their side of the story.

Thank you for your response.

Could we have an explaination of these facts? Regardless of the 'watchdog' site, the are other avenues of reaching affiliates. The watchdog site, I assume CAP, is not responsible for GP's actions. I am feeling a 'pass the buck' here.

Grand Prive is certainly judged harshly and is rouged most everywhere. This is a huge and serious problem for affiliates. How can we be assured that the casinos won't suddenly shut down as well? We can't. Whether the aff program was owned independantly or not, it still was a representative of the casinos. It offered 'lifetime' earnings. With endorsement of seals on the casinos, including ecogra, affiliates believed that. Trust is gone and subsequently and unfortunatly that effects ecogra seals as well.

This issue is far from over and it would help tremendously if ecogra could get aboard and help us out.