Thoughts on Total Gaming Transaction Review (TGTR)

[Casino City]

As everyone seems to have finished for now, i will take it upon myself to ask Mr Corfman a question here, as it is nion related and he prolly checks here.

Mr Corfman.

What are your thoughts about the TGTR please?

Anything remotely related would be interesting for me to hear.

Much obliged, J.

Amandajm: I've copied your question to a different thread, I guess because I really don't want to keep putting a thread with a slanderous title to the head of the recently posted forum list when the content is no longer related to the title in any way.

In terms of your question quoted above, I'm sure there is plenty of room for negative opinions given the general scandals around accounting consulting firms. However, my opinion is that the business dynamics here make it likely that the audits are accurate, and my personal inclination is to place a fair amount of trust in them.

1. If there were significant flaws in the methodology, then I think it would not be easy to sell the methodology to large operations deciding whether they should pay the fees for the audits to establish credibility. The risk of being caught in some future wave of bad publicity would make sales harder if there were such issues, resulting in the natural product development dynamics weeding out major issues. Also, in reviewing how the process works, my personal opinion is that it is well thought out.

2. Given the independent gathering of data on both the gaming and financial side of the house involved in TGTR methodology, one would need to have mistakes on both sides that happen to match (perhaps possible, but I think highly unlikely), or there would need to be collusion between both PwC and the client in the production of the audited results.

3. Collusion between an accounting firm and the firm being audited is certainly not as uncommon as one might hope. However, this sort of collusion is typically only sustainable in an environment where there is a very large financial gain to the involved players, tempting the compromise of principles for a very significant personal return.

4. I just don't see the potential for a large enough return to justify the sort of risks involved here even for someone ethically challenged. I don't see the economic benefit to an executive at a large gaming corporation for adding a bit to an audit statement in todays competitive climate. In my view things like bonuses, product quality, etc. are all much larger drivers of success than these figures. Land-based casinos have had their returns published within many jurisdictions for years, and have survived in the marketplace with much worse returns from a player perspective than those available at online casinos. The downside risk, however, is significant for all of the stakeholders - both the casinos and PwC.

Anyway, that's my two cents on how I see the dynamics here.

Just as a note, one thing we have been thinking of doing on Casino City is to create a database of the history of some of these figures both for land based and online casinos. We have tons of such ideas, so I have no idea whether that would happen anytime soon, but I wouldn't be having those sort of ideas if I felt the audited results were likely to be discredited.

[amandajm]

Thanks for your time.

I understand my worries border on paranoia.

You have no worries about the TGTR based upon the thought that it would be not really financially viable to tamper with the figures.

That is what really nags me. I read of 5 billion dollar industry, divide that by 1% and get a figure of 5 million.

If the numbers are out by 2% ~ 3 ~ annually?

It is not beyond the realms of possibility for something to be amiss and no one has checked the checker.

Who should check the checker of the checker is not a stupid question either. It causes unrest to ask these questions, then i wonder even more what is possibly going on.

You would know the numbers better than I ~ how far am i out?

thanks, J

[caruso]

"Slanderous"? The title was perfectly accurate at the time of going to press.
If Osama Bin Laden renounces evil and commits himself to a monastery, will previous comments about Sept. 11th be regarded as "slanderous"?

LOL. Excuse my "slander".

If there were significant flaws in the methodology, then I think it would not be easy to sell the methodology to large operations...the risk of being caught in some future wave of bad publicity would make sales harder...

These are online casinos, not trappist monks.

Given the independent gathering of data on both the gaming and financial side of the house involved in TGTR methodology...

Unsubstantiated heresay.

...However, this sort of collusion is typically only sustainable in an environment where there is a very large financial gain to the involved players...

And of course, given the penny-ante nature of online gambling, this is clearly correct. LOL.

I just don't see the potential for a large enough return to justify the sort of risks involved here even for someone ethically challenged.

Then you need to wake up and smell the coffee - nobody else doesn't.

[Casinomeister]

"Slanderous"? The title was perfectly accurate at the time of going to press.
If Osama Bin Laden renounces evil and commits himself to a monastery, will previous comments about Sept. 11th be regarded as "slanderous"?

LOL. Excuse my "slander"..

Chill out Caruso - please. The thread that you started was a knee-jerk reaction to a webmaster techno-glitch that was rectified as soon as it was discovered. I want no more of these over-emotional rants. If you feel it necessary to constantly chide and provoke, take it elsewhere - it's not welcome in my forum.

[Casino City]

I was asked for my opinion by amandajm, and I gave it as a courtesy. I'm not particularly interested in entering into an extensive debate on the subject.

Just as a note, I did not mean to imply that a difference on payout percentage for a casino does not make a big difference in its finances amandajm - it clearly does make a huge difference as you point out in your reply to my message. What I was trying to say was that the benefit of reporting distorted rather than actual payout figures is not nearly as important. It might have some marketing benefit, but would not actually change company finances. My opinion is that the near term marketing benefits would not easily generate enough incremental revenue to support the level of collusion required, and the downside financial risk in the case of exposure of that collusion, to make it a very worthwhile endeavor.

[caruso]

Bryan - the Ecogra matter was only a secondary issue, and that's why I listed it as such. The primary matter was Windows et al.

I suggest that the implication my comments were "slanderous" is the provocation.

[amandajm]

CasinoCity.

Much as I have my reservations about what MP's and governments say and do, I am an advocate of the Kitemark.

Funnily enough I gather it is very unlikely that the Kitemark will go hand in hand with a dispute resolution service. No surprise there, although a little disappointing imo.

The use of the Kitemark will certainly have to live happily within the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority og the UK. Not a bad thing with the toxic nature of some advertisers, and the ridiculous amount of bonus terms that are shamefully badly written and then instantly changed, even retroactively. Not to mention baffling claims if "fully insured".

Anyway, Ecogra are aiming to sort all of the above, including the disputes. I have no reason to doubt what Beveridge is trying to do.

My problem is can we really allow an online casino software supplier and PWC to have free reign with so much money abound?

They seem to have just that.

How much money is at stake with this thing?

I understand you do not wish for an extensive debate on the subject here, what can I say? Just ignore me I suppose.

Thanks, J

[caruso]

I understand that Ecogra only handle complaints from AFTER the seals are awarded.

So: Ecogra gives a thorough "inspection" of the casino (LOL); the casino "passes" (LOL); this ostensibly means that the casino is regarded to have a clean bill of health by Ecogra, with no player complaints on record or other such mess. THEN, after the "seal" has been awarded, any subsequent matter (complaint) that Ecogra becomes aware of and that would clearly have impacted the seal award had those facts been kinown at the time, becomes irrelevant?

So once Ecogra claim that the casino is clean, any subsequnt dirt they have their attention drawn to is irrelevant. It shouldn't be possibly a small matter of principle with these fine, upstanding leaders in online regulation that the casinos they represent are complaint-free, and that any matter, from whatever date, is investigated and resolved as per the casino's agreement with them?

I canNOT believe that anyone is taking this seriously. Ecogra = Safebet, end of story.

[bethug]

A seal dont mean nothing to a player than been around, i only trust inetbet, bodog, phoenican,wagerstreet and a few others and none of them have that seal. i play at my old faithfuls. If i do go else place i know i am taken a risk.
to sum it up seal dont mean jack

[dominique]

Caruso, this is getting really old.

You have been making precocious judgements based on your personal, always negative opinion all this time.

The only time I saw you positive about something is when you got paid by Cirrus. That went foul now too, I see. ( By the way - on that count my outlook was more pessimistic than yours from the start. I know the players, and for once I have to support Cindy. Too funny though she got screwed by the same two people claiming innocence and being messengers that screwed me back when. One of life's ironies I guess.)

Caruso, is there anything positive about online gambling? Anything?