It was a combination of bad attitudes from some casino operators, and the implementation of the UKGC which at first was thought of as a player focused licensing agency – it is not.
We found ourselves “speaking to the hand” to a handful (heh) of operators who had erroneously thought that having a license from the UKGC prohibits them from sharing player information to third parties, like ourselves, even when we are given explicit permission from a player to represent him or her. And even when our experience with player issues shadows over all others.
From Max Drayman – Player Arbitration (PAB) manager:
“A fair number of casinos have always been uncomfortable with the unregulated, limbo-land that they’ve been in regarding player complaints. Now with the UKGC there is an explicit process in place and the casinos jumped on board en masse: the whole issue would now be handled by the UKGC’s system and they were happy to wash their hands of it, or so they thought. Of course the UKGC complaints process in no way precludes casinos from talking to 3rd parties like Casinomeister but given the choice many would rather keep it formal and (they imagined) by the book.
There are some old connections between some of the major players in the market, and the more established entities that came forward as Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) for the UKGC. What could be better for those major players than to get a UKGC license, and then be able to funnel all of their player complaints to a group they knew they had an inside connection to: not only would they get the UK stamp of approval as a casino but they’d get to wrap all their complaints up in a neat little bundle and know that all of the uncontrollable variables that are part of dealing with 3rd parties would be swept away in a single stroke. But this is somewhat a tinfoil hat theory.
The huge disappointment here was two-fold: on the one hand the last persons that the parties involved — excluding perhaps the architects of the ADR system — were thinking about were the players themselves, and on the other – the huge contribution that’s been made to the player community by those 3rd parties was being flagrantly ignored, as if it had never happened.”
Biggest Disappointment of 2015 II
White Label Runners: one of the sad things to have seen this past year is the number of white label — or maybe “gray label” is more appropriate — operations that unceremoniously slammed their doors and disappeared from the scene, sometimes right along with the entire lot of player balances they had in trust. Of course this has always been a problem in the industry, but 2015 seemed to bear a bumper crop of these foul fruits, every other week it seemed like in the late summer and fall months.
It makes the industry look like a bunch of fly-by-night crooks that the civilian population already suspects we are, bad news for us all.
Running online casinos is not for the hobbyist, and it shouldn’t be an exercise in fleecing sheeples. And it is definitely a tougher business than most people expect.
Here is a partial list:
Real Deal Bet
Biggest Disappointment Historical Awards
Biggest Disappointment of 2014 – US Market
Biggest Disappointment of 2013 – US Corporate Arrogance and Naivety
Biggest Disappointment of 2012 – Betfair/888.com
Biggest Disappointment of 2011 – Betfair/GRA
Biggest Disappointment of 2010 – HR 2267, US Market, Rival Gaming, Top Gaming
Biggest Disappointment of 2009 – Microgaming, CAP Spring Break, Rushmore Group
Biggest Disappointment of 2008 – Malta’s LGA, White Label Casino Operators, Microgaming
Biggest Disappointment of 2007 – Watching US players being thrown to the wolves
Biggest Disappointment of 2006 – Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
Biggest Disappointment of 2005 – “Abused” Casino Operators (again)
Biggest Disappointment of 2004 – “Abused” Casino Operators
Biggest Disappointment of 2003 – Truegambler’s Cheating Software report/Oddson Software