Pricewaterhouse to pay$50million settlement (can we say fraud)

[GrandMaster]

I personally have always believed that the onus of proof lies with the accuser, but be that as it may I have previously informed you Grandmaster that I do not possess either the expertise or this knowledge and consequently I recommended that you go direct to the proprietors (PwC) or eCOGRA with your questions.

My understanding is that because this is a specialised area, eCOGRA have outsourced it in good faith to Pricewaterhouse Coopers as a respectable multi-national group with the specialised skills required to devise and operate such a system.

eCOGRA is obviously comfortable with the level of fair gaming assurance that the TGTR system used by PwC offers, despite the negative possibilities that you and others have suggested on this aspect in your contention that it totally invalidates the entire eCOGRA initiative.

Jetset: I am not accusing ecogra of anything. I am just stating the fact that nobody has provided anything to back up the claims about TGTR, the only "proof" offered is that PwC is a respected firm of accountants, some people will even argue with that. I am sure they can carry out the accounting aspects of the job well, but RNG testing is not an accounting matter. As long as everything is kept secret, I cannot accept ecogra's assurance that the games are fair.

I repeat that ecogra criteria for game fairness and randomness are inadequate, I don't know whether deliberately, through oversight or lack of understanding. For example, if the results of the game are the same at the same time each day, it can still satisfy ecogra's criteria. Would you consider this to be acceptable? I e-mailed them about this issue, but it still has not been fixed. According to the Casinomeister's webcast, you met people from ecogra, you are in a much better position to get an answer from them about rule 109.R.5.

[sw2003]

Jetset: I am not accusing ecogra of anything. I am just stating the fact that nobody has provided anything to back up the claims about TGTR, the only "proof" offered is that PwC is a respected firm of accountants, some people will even argue with that. I am sure they can carry out the accounting aspects of the job well, but RNG testing is not an accounting matter. As long as everything is kept secret, I cannot accept ecogra's assurance that the games are fair.

I repeat that ecogra criteria for game fairness and randomness are inadequate, I don't know whether deliberately, through oversight or lack of understanding. For example, if the results of the game are the same at the same time each day, it can still satisfy ecogra's criteria. Would you consider this to be acceptable? I e-mailed them about this issue, but it still has not been fixed. According to the Casinomeister's webcast, you met people from ecogra, you are in a much better position to get an answer from them about rule 109.R.5.

You might not be happy with having Pricewaterhouse's procedure of
certifying the numbers but it is still better than if they hire some
nobody-knows company to do the job or worse still, no third party
certification altogether.

The game would most certainly not be the same each day. The casinos
are more afraid of that than you lest people would win big by exploiting
such faults. You need to come up with a better example.

[GrandMaster]

The game would most certainly not be the same each day. The casinos
are more afraid of that than you lest people would win big by exploiting
such faults. You need to come up with a better example.

A predictable RNG could be useful to the casino, if it were restricted to certain "special accounts", which could be used to launder money, or to transfer money to the casino operator's associates to reduce the casino's profits and save on taxes.

Here is a more serious example. It is possible to design a sequence of dice rolls such that each one has the correct probability distribution, each one is independent of the previous roll, but not independent of the whole history, and such that the house edge on both the pass and don't pass bets is greater than it should be (at the expense of reducing the house edge on craps 12 on the come out roll). This is clearly a rigged game and you cannot do anything about it, even if you know that it is rigged. It would still pass the ecogra criteria for fairness, because they are formulated incorrectly.

[rowmare]

Whilst eCOGRA makes its best endeavors, no representation or warranty can be given that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements.

The sentence that I underlined above is the one that concerns me, could you imagine if the New Jersey or the Nevada Gaming Commission made a statement to this effect ?

If any games at any given site is NOT AT ALL TIMES in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements then how in the world is eCOGRA Regulating this online Gaming Industry ?

Does this also mean that the owners of the sites can manipulate the games and outcomes so that they would not be in regulation with eCOGRA requirements ?

I think these are fair questions that need to be addressed by eCOGRA if they are to be respected by the player community.

This is a very good issue to raise - and it just one reason why government regulation of online gambling is something to work towards.

The government commissions have the power to set guidelines and punish those who don't follow them by either fining them or shutting down their business.

As a private enterprise, eCOGRA has no such power, and therefore must put legal disclaimer to the effect that, no, they cannot be held responsible should an online casino make any changes after being approved, or between "check-ups".

[sw2003]

This is a very good issue to raise - and it just one reason why government regulation of online gambling is something to work towards.

The government commissions have the power to set guidelines and punish those who don't follow them by either fining them or shutting down their business.

As a private enterprise, eCOGRA has no such power, and therefore must put legal disclaimer to the effect that, no, they cannot be held responsible should an online casino make any changes after being approved, or between "check-ups".

I agree that is a good point to raise! However, how can you enforce anything
at all times? One cannot monitor every one of the casinos at every single
moment so whether that disclaimer is there or not has little consequence in
practice.

We are not supposed to go over the speed limit but when no police is
watching people do that all the time. You just don't have enough police
to patrol the highways. Same thing goes with monitoring casinos' software
compliance.

[rowmare]

Allow me to add to my last post: (I merely wanted to point how erroneous the assumption was that eCOGRA would have the ability to punish casinos who tamper with the product in any negative way, as a government commission does, which necessitates the legal disclaimer in question)

Untill such time as there is government regulation (which itself isn't perfect), we have an online gambling industry which is self-regulating.

An organization such as eCOGRA is exactly what is needed to set consitent standards, etc., and I for one hope that they prove themselves and, in the future, a casino not approved by them would be something we will all know to avoid.

Dang, but don't I sound like a stuffed shirt?

[jetset]

Interesting points, and the true government regulation could certainly hammer a transgressor in a particular jurisdiction with more punitive measures than, say, removal of a Seal, although it would probably be a bureaucratic and time-consuming process.

The transparency argument notwithstanding, one of the advantages of the PwC TGTR system as I understand it is that it has a continuously monitoring effect insofar as it records and analyses every single transaction (TGTR=Total Gaming Transaction Review) and flags anomalies for more focused investigation.

Given the ultra cautious approach of the legal profession I doiubt that this would remove the necessity for a disclaimer anyway!

[RobWin]

Thanks all for opining to my statements and questions, a lot of very knowledgeable folks on here.