Who should be left accountable, the casino or the software provider?

[jetset]

I think long time gambling veterans like myself speak from experience when we talk about the expectations of losing in the long run. Having experienced the long run myself I too fell victim to the house edge.

If I never won from the beginning I would have quit after my first year at it. That means I would have quit back in 1975 when I started playing tips from a trainer at a Trotters Racetrack in N.Y. So it goes without saying that it's the wins that keep you coming back for more.

Most of my career at gambling was done in Atlantic City, which included most of the best food on the east coast, along with great shows, and some of the best times and entertainment I ever experienced throughout my life. Now throw gambling in with that and the sky turns blue with flowers everywhere.

In addition I can't even begin to tell you how many times I left there with my pockets and my wife's bag jammed with winning cash. On rare occasions I even took home casino checks not being comfortable carrying that much cash around. So like I said before after experiencing the wins, is what keeps you playing with hopes of the life changing win.

Although experience after 35 years and not hitting the life changing win (yet) we still play with the hopes of always winning every time we risk a single penny gambling.

The last 8 or so years I pretty much left the fast lane and now gamble in the granny lane. The money I'm willing to risk now along with my visits to land based casinos is minimal. This doesn't mean I'm playing online just to piss my money away, I'm playing with my lucky souvenir pyramid from Egypt sitting under my monitor with the hopes of knocking one of these casinos for a loop.

No one gambles with the hopes of losing. Online I have hit several 5 digit wins and one 6 digit win. Yet, my experience tells me that eventually even my online winnings will be lost if I keep playing.

Me and many others will tell you we play for fun and expect to lose. But expecting to lose from experience does not mean we are not hoping to win.
Being up 5k and really sending it in trying to hit the big one is fun. Even if you lose it all back. But constantly getting hammered deposit after deposit is not fun.

The ultimate experience for a gambler would be to deposit once on January first, and play the whole year without ever having to deposit again in search of that life changing win, and go bust on December 31...

I still play online casinos always with the hope of the big cash out. But if the cash out isn't big enough it just turns into more ammo.

As far as your question who should be liable the casino or the software provider, is a good question and most are going to say the casino. Unfortunately, the bottom line will be the same when it comes to online casinos, no response.

Like I said before in many threads, we are dealing predominantly with low-end, high-risk, third world governments and online casinos that don't give a rats ass about you or me or what anyone here have to say or request.

Whenever there are good debates here looking for real answers from casinos or software providers from the people that really mean something, their past 100% ZERO response should be enough to tell you how much of a rats ass they really care.

The only vague answers we could get is when Bryan chases connections. Why can't these connections come on here and confront us in person? I would assume they would eventually be exposed that its about the money and nothing to do with us.

Whilst it is impossible to argue that this industry is "all blue sky and flowers" (I really enjoyed that phrase btw!) I have to make the point that the industry is not all as bad as you paint it.

There are good jurisdictions and there are good casino operators who do their damndest to run a clean and fair operation...and still make good profits.

There are clearly grey areas where the duties and obligations to the consumer/player of operator and software provider merge, and in those cases it's generally the operator who becomes responsible for liaising with the provider in attending to the player's problem.

But essentially it's the operator with whom the player signs up, and the player is therefore right to expect the operator to sort out any problems and answer any questions about the product that the player may have. The analogies used by several posters in this thread echo my own thoughts in that regard, and in any case the operator has far more chance of obtaining redress from the provider.

The question of whether operators are prepared to face players on message boards is an interesting one. A number of otherwise professional and honest industry folks to whom I have spoken have been vehement in saying they would never do this because posters - both players and affiliates - use the shield of anonymity themselves to go to excesses of insult and language, often have preconceived and pejorative perceptions and have been known to manipulate opinion.

Being as human as the rest of us, they are simply not prepared to subject themselves to that.

One of the reasons that Casinomeister has such a high proportion of industry reps in attendance on a regular basis is - imo - because the membership here is generally prepared to consider another point of view and is usually disciplined in how and what it posts. For those who aren't, the moderators are generally on the ball and step in with a caution.

But not all message boards are as conducive to reasonable and controlled debate as this one.

Of course none of the above excuses the discourtesy of either operator or software provider ignoring other types of communications, which I regard as the epitome of unprofessionalism....but that is perhaps outside the boundaries of this thread.

[Casinomeister]

I haven't voted yet, because the option for "both" isn't there

As reflected in several post so far, there are many scenerios that require responsiveness from both the operator and software provider. The online gaming industry is unique and really can't be compared to any other IMO. There is no industry that requires the level of trust as this one.

The casino operator is responsible for all aspects of the casino operations - even if their support is centralized - it was their decision to accept this casino package - they have to ensure it's functioning properly. Like the saying goes "the buck stops here."

On the other hand, it is the software provider that is responsible for the games' fairness. They are also the ones who have done their due diligence by putting these operators online, so they should be answerable or offer solutions if the operator goes tits-up.

In a more preferable situation - like Simmo! said - we should be drawing our attention to the licensing entity. But with most cases (sans IoM and Alderney) it's a joke. I don't even bother with Malta anymore - it's a crying shame.

Inside scoop: Kahnawakee btw is making a major turn-around at the moment which is good to hear. We won't have to call them Kahn-a-ha-ha wakee anymore

[johnsteed]

***

I haven't voted yet, because the option for "both" isn't there

I suppose that's because it has to do with who should be held more accountable.


Actually, the point of it - for the most part - is that MG never gives any answers. In all of my years playing online, or coming here, I've yet to see MG step-up to the plate. Why is that? So, it's really convenient for MG casinos to say that they're not responsible for whatever malfunction happens, and to pass along the question to MG, knowing full well that MG will never respond, and that they're not to be held responsible in the end. This is good? Is it unreasonable to put that question out there? Must we always be sensitive toward those hard-working casino operators, and be 100% cognizant of their position, and after that, only after that, then consider the player's position, at least, in accordance to the "better" MG casinos out there?




Steed


***

[Casinomeister]

***






I suppose that's because it has to do with who should be held more accountable.



Steed


***

Ah - but that's the thing - in which instance? Would you hold a software provider accountable if a casino has incompetent support staff? That's an operational issue. You'll also find that software providers cannot or will not involve themselves with casino operations because of legalities or the way their contracts are written up. In most cases they do not have the resources to micro-manage their casinos - so you will find them more responsive to software issues, not operational issues - unless it's some serious shit.

But they do have the power to yank the plug if need be.

[winbig]

But they do have the power to yank the plug if need be.

Something RTG has never done nor ever will.

[Casinomeister]

Something RTG has never done nor ever will.

Yes they have. They have closed a few operations for being effed up. Gambling Lobby for one (years ago) they also closed Hamptons - sold it to another operator after the Pirate 21 fiasco (years ago as well). There have been a number of others, these are all documented here someplace - you'll have to dig.

It doesn't happen all that often - at least not as often as you would hope.

[johnsteed]

***

Ah - but that's the thing - in which instance? Would you hold a software provider accountable if a casino has incompetent support staff? That's an operational issue. You'll also find that software providers cannot or will not involve themselves with casino operations because of legalities or the way their contracts are written up. In most cases they do not have the resources to micro-manage their casinos - so you will find them more responsive to software issues, not operational issues - unless it's some serious shit.

Fine, I would point directly to the way PokerTime handled the mess that they claimed (and then took back and said that they never said anything like that despite that I have evidence in an email from them that states otherwise) was a problem with MG; a system crash. Despite the fact that they (PokerTime/MG) were well aware that a bunch of the poker players on that day, at that specific time, were disconnected from their games, they even said so in an email to me (earlier on in this case), they didn't credit my account with the tournament entry fees that were lost until I could give them satisfactory evidence which proved that this happened. But... they were aware that this happened, yet, they still needed the tournament ID #, hand #, time, date, etc.



I gave them the tournament ID #, time, date, the cost, amount lost, but they (support at PokerTime) said that MG (not them... but MG) weren't satisfied with the information I was able to give them. They still wanted the hand #, yet the tournaments were cut off in the middle of hands played, and who in God's name writes down the hand # of each hand that they play, in case something like this comes up? The last hands played, weren't in PlayCheck, yet you can see in PlayCheck, that no hands were played after a certain point that day, when I was disconnected.



So, again, MG knew about this problem, the casino said so, and I notified them immediately after it happened, and within a short period of time, they weren't convinced that I had lost anything, because I couldn't provide the exact hand #s on the 2 Sit&Go tournaments that were disconnected; despite giving them all of the other details (jpegs galore).



PokerTime kept saying that MG makes the decision in regards to paying back the player (huh?), and I guess that I was rather ticked-off. Hey, it was only about $13 USD, I still had a good $100 left in my account, so it's not like I'm making this up because I'm desperate to get back in the game. So, they make me feel as though I was lying about the whole thing, and I will never play at another PrimaPoker site again because of this. MG thinks they're the cat's meow, but screw them, and I'll take my future business to another poker site that's not PrimaPoker related.



Management did credit me with $20, after a few days, so in the end, they did the right thing (in part), but they did so as an act of goodwill; which made me feel unworthy of what I had originally lost actually (thus feeling not that good).



What if I had been cut off from a tournament/cash game where lots of money could have been at stake? Sure, I only lost $13 at the time, but the amount doesn't matter, it's the fact that MG was aware that there was a problem, and they couldn't get the necessary information. I mean, why do I have to do their homework by combing through PlayCheck to supply them with the relevant information. Shouldn't they have access to all of that? Isn't that lame? No, really really really lame? Heaven forbid that I should lose thousands upon thousands of dollars at MG sites over the years, yet they take a stand on $13 when they were absolutely in the wrong.



Steed


***

[Kerching]

This doesn't mean I'm playing online just to piss my money away, I'm playing with my lucky souvenir pyramid from Egypt sitting under my monitor with the hopes of knocking one of these casinos for a loop.

Good post.

I think the casinos should be answerable to the player. Like someone else said, its the chain of command. Casinos should deal with any player issues themselves and then seperately deal with the software provider if needs be.

[johnsteed]

***

Ah - but that's the thing - in which instance? Would you hold a software provider accountable if a casino has incompetent support staff? That's an operational issue. You'll also find that software providers cannot or will not involve themselves with casino operations because of legalities or the way their contracts are written up. In most cases they do not have the resources to micro-manage their casinos - so you will find them more responsive to software issues, not operational issues - unless it's some serious shit.

If you're asking me directly, my answer is that if I sign-up with any MG casino/poker site, and there's specifically some software problem, I'm not looking at MG, I'm looking at the casino/poker site for answers, or to fix the problem. So, I think that the casino is 100% accountable. I'm not a part of the industry, or an affiliate, I'm a player. When there's a tech problem, a glitch, whatever problem from that end that there may be, I fully expect that site to rectify the situation; and not the silent partner that never answers questions anyway.



And of course I wouldn't expect MG HQ to do anything if I had a problem with a casino/poker site's staff. That would be like complaining to Coca-Cola Ltd. in Atlanta, because some 7-11 cashier was being rude to me, and they sell Coke at 7-11, so they're somehow responsible for the cashier's rude behavior. That doesn't make much sense.



Steed


***

[4 of a kind]

The question of whether operators are prepared to face players on message boards is an interesting one. A number of otherwise professional and honest industry folks to whom I have spoken have been vehement in saying they would never do this because posters - both players and affiliates - use the shield of anonymity themselves to go to excesses of insult and language, often have preconceived and pejorative perceptions and have been known to manipulate opinion.

Being as human as the rest of us, they are simply not prepared to subject themselves to that.

Just something I thought of after reading Jetset's post.

Why can't Bryan set up something like a private thread with the people that matter in this industry, where only him or a chosen select few are the only ones authorized to communicate with them?

We discuss issues in the open forum, and request certain questions to be answered at the private thread. If these questions are worthy and valid, whoever can bring the question forward would then control the conversation removing all risks of abuse.

Just talking and wondering if something like that would work.