Casino standards

[Rusty]

Can we do more to raise standards and do we really care?

I was thinking about the Casinomeister mystery casino promotion when I wrote this thread and wondered if the bar could be raised through a future promotion.

It would be nice for example if a future promotion was announced as Casinomeister "flagship" casino that incorporated all the standards expected of the highest quality online casino.
A new tier to above the accredited casino that includes and adds to those standards such as.

Theoretical RTP of each game listed in paytable

Weekly max cashout of $50,000 minimum but all progressives jackpots paid in full

Must be with licensed by a Whitelisted authority (except Malta)

Must have independent audits published on site.

Must not use bonuses with max cashout rules. (this is just a sneaky way of stealing jackpot pools)

All games excluded from play must be locked out via the casino software.

Quick cashouts (this is a poll all by itself)

All those off the top of my head and these are pretty basic standards (real flagship standards should probably go above and beyond these) but we are where we are and any improvement in perceived accepted standards is very welcome.

Even if Bryan has the will, I appreciate that is a pretty hard sell to Casinos so the list would have to be very exclusive for them to get the benefit of added players.
Bonuses would need to be pretty limited in value too I imagine.

You probably have your own standards you think should make the list or thoughts on how you would tweak those listed but if such a Casino existed here would you actually make this your goto casino?

[vinylweatherman]

This would be an easy section to keep tabs of, as it would be empty

Even 32Red fail 2 of your criteria.

Theoretical RTP of each game listed in paytable
All games excluded from play must be locked out via the casino software.

This section could NEVER be entered by a new casino entering the site, therefore it would be hard to run promotions alongside this.

A casino would have to have YEARS of CONSISTENT good behaviour in the current accredited section before such a status could be granted. The problem would be a casino getting flagship status, and THEN having a "meltdown", and ending up in the rogue pit.

Another standard would have to be a full & binding guarantee scheme covering all player balances and pending withdrawals in the event of operator failure. TUSK left the accredited section in record time, and many players lost money because their balances sunk with TUSK; they were NOT ringfenced separately from general company assets, nor were they insured by way of a guarantee scheme.

Some problems have ocurred when accredited casinos change ownership, but neglect to inform CM or players. This is what happened when Purple Lounge discraced themselves by breaking one of the CM standards. Investigation of the incident, which was unbecoming of an accredited casino, revealed that Purple Lounge had been sold to a new owner, who had changed the rules in a way that no longer met CM standards, but failed to tell Bryan or players about this.

This brings me to another standard. CM must be kept informed of any changes like this, and further, there must be a mechanism in place to prevent this getting "forgotten in the chaos" of any kind of move or ownership change. I think only a method of regular confirmation of there having been no such changes would prevent such "forgetfulness", and if the regular confirmation fails to arrive, CM will have reason to look into it, whereupon he would quickly discover if the lack of confirmation was down to reasons such as ownership changes, office moves, policy changes, etc.
Currently, casinos hang on to accredited status because they haven't told CM that they have been sold, and CM only finds out when Max tries to process one of the rare PABs and then finds that all his old contacts have "gone", and new staff/owners are unwilling to work with the program. This then reveals that this was "an accident waiting to happen" all the time the casino had been listed because the OLD owners were "with the program", even though they could have had MONTHS operating with new owners, and new rules.

[Rusty]

Some good points there VWM.

The criteria are not so much my criteria as criteria that should be expected of reputable operation. The reason they don't exist is down to lack of regulation and poor standards.
For example while it is true MGS's most respected Casinos currently fail to meet some of those standards, I only see that as reason to push for better standards so that 32Red and Ladbrokes etc should be insisting that MGS provide support for these standards to be attained.
If they are such flag bearers of standards they are purported to be surely that is not asking much.
the fact that no currently accredited Casinos meet the flagship standard could be because there is currently no flagship category to aspire to.
It could be an empty category waiting for a casino to aspire to reach it. That could work as a nice incentive for a Casino to be a first to attain flagship status.

The standards I list are just those I thought were important to the player and easy to implement by the Casinos.
It could make for a very interesting open discussion between CM, Reps, software developers and members as to what those standards should finally be and how best they could implemented and maintained if only the will were there.

[love2winalot]

Hiya: VWM is right. Look at the Wizard of Odds site. He had a bunch of casino's, got rid of all of them, and put all his Eggs into the, "Bodog casino" basket. Then one day, Bodog suffered, as their main money service provided was having issues, and thus, it would take 2 months to get paid. This happened to me. They lost a lot of players because of this. Then the money service providers were OK again, and you got paid within a week with a check if you wanted. This also happened to me. But a lot of other, who left, never went back.

So, instead of bringing on a Super casino, why don't We/Casinomeister, just make our own casino?

[Rusty]

Hiya: VWM is right. Look at the Wizard of Odds site. He had a bunch of casino's, got rid of all of them, and put all his Eggs into the, "Bodog casino" basket. Then one day, Bodog suffered, as their main money service provided was having issues, and thus, it would take 2 months to get paid. This happened to me. They lost a lot of players because of this. Then the money service providers were OK again, and you got paid within a week with a check if you wanted. This also happened to me. But a lot of other, who left, never went back.

So, instead of bringing on a Super casino, why don't We/Casinomeister, just make our own casino?

I am not suggesting the accredited list should be dropped or CM should "put all his eggs in one basket", just that there is room for another tier of Casinos that go above and beyond what is expected of them in the accredited list.

The reason we don't make our own Casino is in fact a Thousand reasons though it is great idea in principle.
The logistics of it are just unimaginably difficult unfortunately - though it is theoretically possible to have a CM forum group ownership.

[felicie]

In a perfect world maybe but would it really be any fun?

[skiny]

I don't think having two lists of accredited casinos is really necessary. Either you're trustworthy or you're not.

If you keep piling on the criteria list we'll likely only see more casinos falling off the edge than we are now.

Also, the criteria list was updated not too long ago to accomodate for certain situations that were not becoming of a trustworthy casino, e.g., vague terms and conditions. I think at that point most of us were happy with the changes.

If you really want the accredited casinos to aspire to serve better than the given list requires, a secondary list of "not required" points might be a better idea than a second list of casinos. These points could be shown as stars beside the casino names in the list or have tiny symbols showing which extra points or services the casino provides.

[Rusty]

I don't think having two lists of accredited casinos is really necessary. Either you're trustworthy or you're not.

If you keep piling on the criteria list we'll likely only see more casinos falling off the edge than we are now.

Also, the criteria list was updated not too long ago to accomodate for certain situations that were not becoming of a trustworthy casino, e.g., vague terms and conditions. I think at that point most of us were happy with the changes.

If you really want the accredited casinos to aspire to serve better than the given list requires, a secondary list of "not required" points might be a better idea than a second list of casinos. These points could be shown as stars beside the casino names in the list or have tiny symbols showing which extra points or services the casino provides.

The thing is if they are non required criteria then where is the incentive for them to adopt them?
You could have a league table format or points system for various criteria met but that would be unnecessarily complicated.
The point of adding a tier is that you are giving Casinos a higher level to aim for and TBH the accredited criteria are fine but they are far from conclusive as to what players should expect as a matter of normalcy in a properly regulated world.
A second tier provides a clear dividing line and step up in quality IMO and so would work much better than a point system where Casinos can mix and match what criteria they see fit to include. It just isn't practical for players to sift through all the criteria Casinos may or may not include and it would be a nightmare to keep updated.

[skiny]

The thing is if they are non required criteria then where is the incentive for them to adopt them?
You could have a league table format or points system for various criteria met but that would be unnecessarily complicated.
The point of adding a tier is that you are giving Casinos a higher level to aim for and TBH the accredited criteria are fine but they are far from conclusive as to what players should expect as a matter of normalcy in a properly regulated world.
A second tier provides a clear dividing line and step up in quality IMO and so would work much better than a point system where Casinos can mix and match what criteria they see fit to include. It just isn't practical for players to sift through all the criteria Casinos may or may not include and it would be a nightmare to keep updated.

The incentive to adopt them would be these casinos would be considered a step above the casinos that do not. I'm not talking about a "point system." I'm talking about simple checks that show which extra points in the extended list these casinos provide. This does create a dividing line, just like the line that divides 5 star hotels from 3 star except in this case we know exactly what each star means.

[Rusty]

The incentive to adopt them would be these casinos would be considered a step above the casinos that do not. I'm not talking about a "point system." I'm talking about simple checks that show which extra points in the extended list these casinos provide. This does create a dividing line, just like the line that divides 5 star hotels from 3 star except in this case we know exactly what each star means.

The only way you could make such a system at all manageable would be to have columns for each extra criteria and put a check next to the casino that has it but that is not ideal because then if you order them by amount of extra criteria adopted some criteria are more important to some players than others. There is also lots of other important information that is already in columns in the accredited list.
Make a mock up of 10 casinos with all the relevant information and my added criteria and you will soon see what I mean.

The accredited list has bundled criteria that must apply to all for a reason and having tiers to separate groups in quality is hardly a way out concept - it is used commonly for many things.