Captain Cooks group in trouble?

[Dirk Diggler]

To get back on topic (i.e. Integrity possibly stealing players bonuses) I must say it's extremely dissapointing, no matter what the outcome, to see another supposedly reputable casino group attempt to try to pull the oldest trick in the book.

It was Omni a few months back, Lake Palace even less so and now these lot.

I tell you what some of you might really find interesting is that out of all the software groups I've played at RTG is the one I would recommend most at the moment. They've got one of the best games available in the world in Pontoon, have Montana as backup if a casino tries to screw you (which covers ALL RTG casinos - obviously ecogra does not cover all MGs) and really seem to be making giant strides in becoming one of the most reputable operators out their.

I'd take a Warren Cloub casino before Integrity any day at the moment, yes you may have to make a complaint or so before getting paid but at least these days he doesn't confiscate bonuses etc because he doesn't like the way someone plays.

P.S Personally I've lost in the region of 2K to the Integrity group in the past couple of months, and they've lost me as a customer - not due to that but due to this blatent disregard for player rights.

 

[Lurkio]

To get back on topic (i.e. Integrity possibly stealing players bonuses) I must say it's extremely dissapointing, no matter what the outcome, to see another supposedly reputable casino group attempt to try to pull the oldest trick in the book.

It was Omni a few months back, Lake Palace even less so and now these lot.

I tell you what some of you might really find interesting is that out of all the software groups I've played at RTG is the one I would recommend most at the moment. They've got one of the best games available in the world in Pontoon, have Montana as backup if a casino tries to screw you (which covers ALL RTG casinos - obviously ecogra does not cover all MGs) and really seem to be making giant strides in becoming one of the most reputable operators out their.

I'd take a Warren Cloub casino before Integrity any day at the moment, yes you may have to make a complaint or so before getting paid but at least these days he doesn't confiscate bonuses etc because he doesn't like the way someone plays.

P.S Personally I've lost in the region of 2K to the Integrity group in the past couple of months, and they've lost me as a customer - not due to that but due to this blatent disregard for player rights.

Doesnt RTG own Montana? ..and micro certainly rules ecogra...so it begs the question...

Are they independant at all ?..yeah sure they are!

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Doesnt RTG own Montana? ..and micro certainly rules ecogra...so it begs the question...

Are they independant at all ?..yeah sure they are!

Agreed - they obviously can't be truly independent as the outfits they govern are paying their wages which obviously creates a conflict of interet. The thing is though can true independance be said of any monitoring organisation in the world? Most of these organisations have their wages paid directly or indirectly by the companies they are supposedly monitoring.

Personally I believe in 90% of the time they do arrive at the fair and correct answer - especially in the online casino world when they have the public eye upon them which they do at this site and many others.

They both have made bad decisions IMO - but then better that than having no comeback when Playtech's Grand Banks decides to not pay you for 73.8 years.

For me if you are looking at fair casino's to play at you should avoid Playtech and Chartwell like the plague. These software providers offer no backup for players and have both had licensees that have screwed me personally.

 

[Lurkio]

Agreed - they obviously can't be truly independent as the outfits they govern are paying their wages which obviously creates a conflict of interet. The thing is though can true independance be said of any monitoring organisation in the world? Most of these organisations have their wages paid directly or indirectly by the companies they are supposedly monitoring.

Personally I believe in 90% of the time they do arrive at the fair and correct answer - especially in the online casino world when they have the public eye upon them which they do at this site and many others.

They both have made bad decisions IMO - but then better that than having no comeback when Playtech's Grand Banks decides to not pay you for 73.8 years.

For me if you are looking at fair casino's to play at you should avoid Playtech and Chartwell like the plague. These software providers offer no backup for players and have both had licensees that have screwed me personally.

yes you are right..except I suppose when a govt is the monitor..but then again there are always "special interest " groups and lobbyists

Who the hell are Chartwell ??? LOL ..seriously tho..ive never heard of them.

 

[Thatchatch]

Chartwell

Hi ,

try

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE Originally Posted by Lurkio
Doesnt RTG own Montana? ..and micro certainly rules ecogra...so it begs the question...Are they independant at all ?..yeah sure they are! UNQUOTE

Lurkio, I am sure you know better than that because it has been discussed ad nauseum, but for the record in case some innocent unaware of the personal agendas here is misled:

Operational control of eCOGRA rests in the hands of three independent directors - all respected international figures who value their impressive reputations for integrity and responsibility:

Michael Hirst
Frank Catania
Bill Galston

You can see their biogs for yourself on the ecogra site.

As has been indicated several times in the past, the CEO Andrew Beveridge reports direct to the chairman, Michael Hirst.

The two founding funders of eCOGRA, Cassava Enterprises (Casino On Net) and Microgaming each have a director on the Board. It has already been announced that Poker Room / Ongame is in the final stages of inspection leading to acceptance as the third major software to join this initiative.

Others are negotiating because this is a serious commitment for any casino and its software provider - and all have been repeatedly advised that it is available to them.

eCOGRA has also shown its independence in being the first industry body to condemn GFED in the recent malware debacle, when it could have taken a back seat and waited for the IGC to do something.

Another example: Dirk D has personal experience in regard to the dispute section of the organisation. In his high-value dispute over T&Cs with Lake Palace Casino recently he took the case to the FGA at eCOGRA who initially ruled in favour of the casino. (BTW the eCOGRA eGAPs in this regard may have resonance now in the dispute shaping up over ICL, which is not an eCOGRA member)

However, when the decision was reviewed by the CEO and the Board, after an articulate appeal by Stanhope that decision was reversed to benefit the player....and Lake Palace met it's obligation without further demure.

These are facts - so let's at least be fair in our criticism of an organisation that has already assisted any number of players and continues to police its members. One that is not controlled by either of the founding funders, each a major corporate in its own right.

 

[Vesuvio]

This comes from GoneGambling:

Integrity Casinos - The Phone Call
Following on from the above article on changes to bonusing at the Casino Action Group, we also phoned our contact at Integrity Casinos. Integrity Casinos includes Captain Cooks Casino, Casino Classic and Casino Kingdom.

They were kind enough to issue the following statement:

".. In early March, Integrity Casinos Limited (ICL) recruited a specialist analyst to review the performance of all its brands. This review resulted in a very clear picture that the ICL brands had been raided by a significant number of people who were playing low margin games with bonuses in such a manner as to play the statistical return of the game, instead of the probability of an outcome on any individual hand.

Detailed investigations then lead to the identification of hundreds of potential abusers within the ICL group, warranting drastic action by the management team. These drastic actions involved, changing the terms and conditions, adjusting acquisition bonus amounts, placing suspect accounts on hold and enforcing terms and conditions that, frankly, would rather have not been enforced under any other circumstance.

ICL is undertaking a complete review of most of its players at all brands. Any player accounts that are found to be suspect will have deposits returned; all accounts that are not suspect will be completely honoured - in terms of deposits, winnings and cash-in requests. Of course this action will lead Integrity to be accused of not honouring winnings - our word is that we will honour all winnings that have been the outcome of fair play against the rules of the game. Any winnings derived from play that was not solely against the rules of the game will not be paid. In making our decisions in this regard, we will err on the side of the player.

The impact of the bonus abuse, the change in bonuses, and terms and conditions have obviously had unrelated effects that would rather have been avoided. For example, it is rumoured that Integrity is suffering financial difficulties. For those on the outside, and considering the history of operators in our industry, this may be an understandable interpretation. However, this is not the case. ICL is merely moving to make itself as unattractive as possible to those who abuse online casinos, while attempting to continue to make its brands relevant and appealing to the genuine and legitimate casino player looking for an entertaining and enjoyable experience. ..."

Willy, care to explain what on earth you mean by:

"a significant number of people who were playing low margin games with bonuses in such a manner as to play the statistical return of the game, instead of the probability of an outcome on any individual hand."

Some specialist analyst you have there! You must have been stunned to discover that sensible players exist. Perhaps putting the whole balance on a single hand is the only acceptable way of playing at your casino?

I'm just posting this to make it clear again that Integrity are planning to deny (& already denying) winnings to players who played a game specifically allowed in the terms and conditions and met the wagering requirements for it. No news yet on whether they plan to refund all the deposits to those who did the same and lost

 

[Stanford]

These are facts - so let's at least be fair in our criticism of an organisation that has already assisted any number of players and continues to police its members. One that is not controlled by either of the founding funders, each a major corporate in its own right.

I agree. This Integrity debacle would be resolved or I feel certain eCOGRA would have pulled their seal.

But as this isn't an eCOGRA casino, players should stay away.

Stanford.

PS - Wonder where Willy went?

 

[caruso]

"For example, it is rumoured that Integrity is suffering financial difficulties. For those on the outside, and considering the history of operators in our industry, this may be an understandable interpretation. However, this is not the case."

Neither the facts nor circumstances support this. Quite the reverse.

I wonder if they'll jump ship to Playtech?

 

[Stanford]

"For example, it is rumoured that Integrity is suffering financial difficulties... However, this is not the case."

Neither the facts nor circumstances support this. Quite the reverse.

I wonder if they'll jump ship to Playtech?

I wonder if they will hire Alan from 40+ to help Willy.

Stanford.

 

[sirius]

When I read that statement I thought to myself that the specialist analyst must also be working for a competing casino! Did they employ someone who knew nothing about online casinos?

...attempting to continue to make its brands relevant and appealing to the genuine and legitimate casino player looking for an entertaining and enjoyable experience.

If you set the terms too high you will find that only bonus hunters will get interested in playing if they see any sort of player edge. Even 100x bonus has a small edge sometimes but I think the average player will not be attracted to wagering requirements of more than 30x or 40x bonus (and probably far less).

Implementing the bonus account was not helpful to anyone in the first place and very confusing to players. You can see some of the confusion here: Outdated URL (Invalid) ,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(this one mostly relates to the even worse system at the Casino Rewards group which I think implemented the system slightly before the Integrity group)

 

[jetset]

This comes from GoneGambling:

(PLEASE SEE THE GG STATEMENT POSTED OVERLEAF BY VESUVIO)

Willy, care to explain what on earth you mean by:

"a significant number of people who were playing low margin games with bonuses in such a manner as to play the statistical return of the game, instead of the probability of an outcome on any individual hand."

Some specialist analyst you have there! You must have been stunned to discover that sensible players exist. Perhaps putting the whole balance on a single hand is the only acceptable way of playing at your casino?

I'm just posting this to make it clear again that Integrity are planning to deny (& already denying) winnings to players who played a game specifically allowed in the terms and conditions and met the wagering requirements for it. No news yet on whether they plan to refund all the deposits to those who did the same and lost

Interesting statement, which I think vindicates my interpretation at Post 43 of last week, incidentally.

That does not mean that I agree with what they seem to be doing on bonuses, a fact which seems to have escaped one or two people here.

Last week, at Post 53 I suggested that the following should be the procedure if their genuine and honest intent is to get rid of players they don't want around:

QUOTE I think the IC management are approaching this as their right of admission and their right to refuse to contract with any party. But that's just what I think - you may disagree.

As to retrospective application of T&Cs, well I'm with you there (yes, we do very occasionally share a rare view!)

I think the right way to issue these exclusion orders, once the inspection process has ended would be to set the expulsion date and then payout ALL monies owed up to that date - deposits, winnings and bonuses - earned under the T&Cs up to that point. There can be no retroactive practice in that area as far as I am personally concerned.

At the same time I would advise those identified that I no longer wished to do business with them and that I was invoking the right of admission and closing all of their accounts.

I would include a warning that if they tried by some other means to use my facilities in the future, were successful but were discovered, then all monies excluding deposit would be forfeit. UNQUOTE

Judging by the posts we are now seeing, ICL is not doing that, and that is a serious matter that will be addressed.

 

[Vesuvio]

Interesting statement, which I think vindicates my interpretation at Post 43 of last week, incidentally.

I appreciate we now have almost identical views on this topic, but I wouldn't agree that their statement vindicates your original post, which was then slightly altered and published as a news item around the web.

One basic point is that you can't always take a casino's statements at face value. The idea that in all their years running an internet casino they hadn't discovered bonus hunting until they employed a specialist analyst this month is laughable. Financial problems - whether cash flow issues, losses or simply a lower than expected profit - are still the most plausible reason for their actions.

Your original post presented this issue in a positive light - as a bold stand taken against bonus hunting. Just take a look at the adjectives used in your first paragraph: "established", "successful", "strong". You mention that they're "methodically" going through the accounts to find the players they don't want, "probably a relatively small percentage of the total". All in all it was like a policeman closing off a crime scene and telling passersby to go about their business - "nothing to see here".

Despite mentioning that they were going to confiscate bonuses you ended on the positive note: "It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles."

The oddest part was where you said: "I think this is a definite warning shot for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses to get out of Dodge as far as Integrity Casinos are concerned before your accounts are closed." I don't see how the players could get out of Dodge as their funds were already frozen. They could give up their winnings, but as they'd met all the terms and conditions there was no reason they should do that.

I accept it's usually justified to give some benefit of the doubt to a casino with a good reputation, but I'd stand by my assessment of your post as poorly judged given the statements from the casino and what we knew from other sources at the time. A simple objective reporting of the casino's statement and perhaps some mention of players' concerns would have been appropriate. If you wanted to make it into an interesting piece of journalism then the key issue would be that of funds being confiscated from players who played by the casino's rules. Bonus hunters being banned from playing at on-line casinos isn't news.

 

[dominique]

None of this explains why there are affiliates that are not being paid - and prior testimony from affiliates in this thread notwithstanding I keep hearing of additional cases.

I understand that Integrity has been a reliable and solid operation for a good long time. I have always made allowances for such places - I did for Omni also.

But Integrity has some tracking issues with their new casino. They also have trouble paying their affiliates and that is always a red flag - everytime that happens there are affiliates pulling the casinos off their sites and that hurts, so affiliates do tend to get paid asap.

I keep repeating myself on this issue - players and affiliates need to pay attention to what happens to both groups. It's heads or tail of the same coin.

 

[555YY]

i wonder how fast the affiliates who have been singing IGC praises throughout this thread will come crying to PAB now that they're getting stiffed as well

IGC, i will be canceling all my accounts with your casinos tonight, the ONLY ONE who's abusing the term "bonus" here IS YOU :sniper:

 

[jetset]

Since you are determined to chase every rat down every hole again it would appear, perhaps in a not very subtle attempt to discredit me, I must again take the time to respond to your post for the record, although I would prefer to slug this out on a PM or an email to avoid creating a valueless sideshow here.

QUOTE: I appreciate we now have almost identical views on this topic, but I wouldn't agree that their statement vindicates your original post, which was then slightly altered and published as a news item around the web. UNQUOTE

The press report was an article which used some of the content of my post. My post - my op-ed article. I don't see what your hang-up is with that. I think it is also worth remembering that some water, and revelations have flowed under the bridge since last week. I remain uncomfortable with unbacked but confidently made assertions of impending financial collapse regarding ICL. Proof of that is yet to emerge i.m.o. yet it is already being bruited about as fact.

I said in my post that I interpreted ICL's actions as a management determined to rid itself of expert players who were only interested in bonuses and that is exactly what the GG statement says. There is no evidence i.m.v. that suggests this is not the case, although you will no doubt persist in your contention that it is a consquence of financial trouble.

QUOTE: One basic point is that you can't always take a casino's statements at face value. The idea that in all their years running an internet casino they hadn't discovered bonus hunting until they employed a specialist analyst this month is laughable. Financial problems - whether cash flow issues, losses or simply a lower than expected profit - are still the most plausible reason for their actions.UNQUOTE

You are lecturing me on casino behaviour? LOL. Where in their GG statement does it say that they were not aware of bonus hunting as a threat prior to the employment of an analyst? Another assumption, I fear. Does it not occur to you that the analyst may have been brought in because they were very well aware of the impact of bonusing - that's another assumption btw. As experienced casino operators over several years I would guess that ICL management are as aware of bonus use as either of us. Again, the financial reason is in your opinion the most plausible explanation - but it remains an assumption. I have yet to be convinced, and whilst I am totally opposed to ICL silence and their unfair bonusing policy which is becoming increasingly apparent, I would like to see some substance to speculation before joining the general uproar on the aspect of their motivation and financial state.

QUOTE Your original post presented this issue in a positive light - as a bold stand taken against bonus hunting. Just take a look at the adjectives used in your first paragraph: "established", "successful", "strong". You mention that they're "methodically" going through the accounts to find the players they don't want, "probably a relatively small percentage of the total". All in all it was like a policeman closing off a crime scene and telling passersby to go about their business - "nothing to see here". UNQUOTE

And all of that is truth and fact, perhaps other than the speculation that the number of expelled players is likely to be a small percentage - that's a matter of opinion as I have explained before.

That is exactly what they were doing. But you are up in arms because it is presented in a manner that does not happen to meet with your approval and others here. That is the way we saw the story at that juncture.

Your policeman analogy is (again) insulting because it suggests we want to sweep this under the carpet when nothing could be further from the truth.

QUOTE Despite mentioning that they were going to confiscate bonuses you ended on the positive note: "It's likely to cause a furore, but it will probably save a lot of future bonus dispute hassles." UNQUOTE

And I was right - it has caused a furore that is increasing in intensity as we now see firm and verified proof that they are imposing unfair bonus disqualifications on players with a legitimate claim.

I have repeatedly said that is not acceptable...and instead of merely shouting from the bleachers I am doing something practical to address it in company with other people of like view. And it is likely that (unless this crazy bonus policy overtakes them first) they will have less bonus hassles by carefully reserving their right of admission. That's an assumption on my part - sorry!

QUOTE The oddest part was where you said: "I think this is a definite warning shot for the itinerant population interested only in taking advantage of bonuses to get out of Dodge as far as Integrity Casinos are concerned before your accounts are closed." I don't see how the players could get out of Dodge as their funds were already frozen. They could give up their winnings, but as they'd met all the terms and conditions there was no reason they should do that. UNQUOTE

I still do think this was a warning that they intend to get rid of people with whom they do not wish to conduct business, and the GG statement confirms that. Maybe it was intended to warn off other people who's business they didn't want. Who knows? The important thing is that PABs are now starting to come in that show firm examples of bonus and T&C malpractice, and that is something concrete that can be tackled by more than a welter of posts.

QUOTE: I accept it's usually justified to give some benefit of the doubt to a casino with a good reputation, but I'd stand by my assessment of your post as poorly judged given the statements from the casino and what we knew from other sources at the time. A simple objective reporting of the casino's statement and perhaps some mention of players' concerns would have been appropriate. If you wanted to make it into an interesting piece of journalism then the key issue would be that of funds being confiscated from players who played by the casino's rules. Bonus hunters being banned from playing at on-line casinos isn't news. UNQUOTE

Maybe not to bonus players, but that is not the sole audience. I remain unmoved by your criticism and I am certainly not going to take the time to defend editorial decisions every time you feel strongly about an issue or see it from a perspective different to my own.

In my opinion events have justified your criticisms of ICL regarding bonus malpractice and I intend to do what I can to redress that on behalf of stiffed players.

I am also of the opinion that ICL's silence is offensive to the player community given the gravity of the concerns being expressed, and they need to quickly rethink this bonus policy they have embarked on if they are serious about staying in the business and living up to their formerly good reputation.

I do not (yet) see reasonable cause for assumptions that their motives are rooted in extreme financial distress, and (bonuses aside for a second) I believe they do have the right to decide with whom they want to do business.

 

[born2befly]

Ok,

Big inhale,

Here is my experience.

Joined Casino Kingdom didnt even do the signup bonus.... lost $775.

Joined Captain Cooks... did the signup bonus.

Was down to like $20-50, then won and had a cashout pending for $400.

Did another deposit there of $700 (for a negative EV bonus) they reversed my withdrawal of $400 and put it back into my account since i claimed another bonus. I played through the wr, had a cashout of $1330, had it oked by support. They froze my account, and after some emails they emailed me responses including...

Your deposit refund of $700.00 has been paid to you via NETeller.

We have completed the investigation of your account.

You are not entitled to a deposit refund of your Casino Kingdom
account, you lost those credits. You are not entitled to a refund of the 3 x
$20.00 deposits you made at your Captain Cooks Casino account, you also
lost those credits.

Our decision is final and no further correspondence will be entered
into on this matter. Your accounts at our site have been closed.

Regards,

Louise
Accounts Department
Captain Cooks Casino

Um, yeah, I did not lose my deposit here buddy. Except when you decided to steal it from me.

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

ICL is merely moving to make itself as unattractive as possible to those who abuse online casinos, while attempting to continue to make its brands relevant and appealing to the genuine and legitimate casino player looking for an entertaining and enjoyable experience

I would fire that "specialist analyst" if I were them.

Your average gambler looking for entertainment is NOT INTERESTED in figuring out 8 pages of T&C, worrying about which games they can play without getting their money confiscated, remembering 3 different account names and passwords (real account, bonus account, loyalty account) for each casino, and having to keep track of thousands of wagering requirement and which games count for how much and in what account, for a relatively small bonus. That is not at all entertaining. There are hundreds of other casinos online that are just as entertaining, with much less complication.

In fact the ONLY people who would go through all that are people who are advantage players. Congratulations, it seems you've attracted a boatload of them. And in the process of this saga, also lost some genuine players apparently.

As an anecdotal evidence to this, lets examine what I think are the most successful online casinos: Casino-on-Net and Intercasino.

Casino-on-Net has a generous 100% bonus up to $200, with 10x wagering on the bonus ONLY. No bonus accounts, no different requirements for different games, no minimum transfers, and their comp points can be converted at $1 increments, and you don't have to create loyalty accounts.

On top of that, further bonuses carry only 2x bonus wagering requirement. And they offer MONTHLY reloads.

Intercasino has a generous 100% bonus up to $90 EVERY MONTH, and still relatively light 25x wagering on BONUS ONLY. Again, no complicated bonus accounts, game limitations and different rules for different games.

In short their terms and bonus systems are simple, easy to understand, attractive to people who just want to be entertained. Not get a law degree to figure out the T&Cs.

How are these 2 casinos able to offer such generous bonuses without being taken down by "bonus hunters"? They are aware that their terms are simple enough that genuine players can enjoy the games, and that in the long run, for every "bonus hunter" out there to eek out a small profit from the casino, there are many many more genuine players who will be very profitable.

Anyway, to conclude, if your T&Cs and bonus system is so draconian that only "sharp players" (to borrow their term) can figure them out, then only "sharp players" will come and play.

 

[dominique]

In fact the ONLY people who would go through all that are people who are advantage players.

This is something for casinos to really think about.

There comes a point where using a bonus becomes more trouble than it's worth, and that threshold is at different levels for different people.

I have a very low threshold and will not use bonuses that have any wagering requirements at all. Either give me an incentive or don't, I just want to play and withdraw as I please.

Other people will put up with considerable trouble to gain an edge by using a bonus.

Only truly sharp players will put up with incredibly complicated wagering requirements.

It's a conundrum for casinos. I think if I was a casino I wouldn't offer any set bonuses. I would distribute money to players randomly, at odd intervals and without wr, and the longer they have been with my casino, the more I would hand out to them. I would combine this with a loss insurance of 10% or so.

I would take some clues from land casinos. They don't hand out money to everyone who walks in the door. They hand out comps to players they know. The more they play the more they get. It makes a lot more sense and it fosters loyalty and it makes life simple for the player. And it is profitable to the casino.

Just my two bits.

 

[Vesuvio]

Since you are determined to chase every rat down every hole again it would appear, perhaps in a not very subtle attempt to discredit me, I must again take the time to respond to your post for the record, although I would prefer to slug this out on a PM or an email to avoid creating a valueless sideshow here.

I would have let this question rest, but you chose this juncture to suggest that your original post was vindicated. I took that reasonably enough as being directed at me, seeing as we'd had rather a long discussion of the topic.

I don't want to discredit you, I simply stand by my original disagreement with your post and subsequent editorial. Instead of a straightforward presentation of the facts you speculated in a positive manner on the casino's actions. I'm not suggesting any impropriety (& I've no issue at all with the editorial being similar to the post on here - that was a misunderstanding). I simply thought in this instance you made a mistake and I outlined why. I agree that it would have been wrong to speculate about financial difficulties in a news story - my complaint was with the overly positive spin put on the casino's actions, which wasn't supported by the facts, statements or opinions available at the time.

 

[dirk_dangerous]

"I think if I was a casino I wouldn't offer any set bonuses."

Online casinos must offer bonus money; there are only so many gambling addicts to go around, and the rest of us don't trust online casinos enough to gamble online sans bonus money. So the casinos have to offer some type of real money incentive to get customers in the door.

Hey, it was the caisnos that came up with the bonus business model, why blame the players for taking the bait?

As usual, this is nothing more than the usual "blame the players" routine. It gets a bit tiresome.

Like I said, CC could have avoided all this; my offer to online casinos still stands $2000 an hour plus expenses, and I will solve all your promotion problems

 

[Lurkio]

QUOTE Originally Posted by Lurkio
Doesnt RTG own Montana? ..and micro certainly rules ecogra...so it begs the question...Are they independant at all ?..yeah sure they are! UNQUOTE

Lurkio, I am sure you know better than that because it has been discussed ad nauseum, but for the record in case some innocent unaware of the personal agendas here is misled:

Operational control of eCOGRA rests in the hands of three independent directors - all respected international figures who value their impressive reputations for integrity and responsibility:

Michael Hirst
Frank Catania
Bill Galston

You can see their biogs for yourself on the ecogra site.

As has been indicated several times in the past, the CEO Andrew Beveridge reports direct to the chairman, Michael Hirst.

The two founding funders of eCOGRA, Cassava Enterprises (Casino On Net) and Microgaming each have a director on the Board. It has already been announced that Poker Room / Ongame is in the final stages of inspection leading to acceptance as the third major software to join this initiative.

Others are negotiating because this is a serious commitment for any casino and its software provider - and all have been repeatedly advised that it is available to them.

eCOGRA has also shown its independence in being the first industry body to condemn GFED in the recent malware debacle, when it could have taken a back seat and waited for the IGC to do something.

Another example: Dirk D has personal experience in regard to the dispute section of the organisation. In his high-value dispute over T&Cs with Lake Palace Casino recently he took the case to the FGA at eCOGRA who initially ruled in favour of the casino. (BTW the eCOGRA eGAPs in this regard may have resonance now in the dispute shaping up over ICL, which is not an eCOGRA member)

However, when the decision was reviewed by the CEO and the Board, after an articulate appeal by Stanhope that decision was reversed to benefit the player....and Lake Palace met it's obligation without further demure.

These are facts - so let's at least be fair in our criticism of an organisation that has already assisted any number of players and continues to police its members. One that is not controlled by either of the founding funders, each a major corporate in its own right.

Well Im not sure who you are referring to re personal agendas but to say that ecogra are totally independant is an insult to anyones intelligence.

Id like to see how "operational" control is in the hands of 3 retired "figurehead" board members..all with other interests.

Generally these sort of directors get a healthy fee for a few board meetings a year..if that.

Of course they have respectable board members..thats why they are there...to lend some credibility.

Of course they took a stand on the malware..they absolutely NO choice..it was so blatant.

So they settle the odd dispute..so does Montana!

What does Beveridge do "operationally"..make the tea??

Gimme a break!

 

[The Dude]

Hi All,

Lets mellow out on the personal jabs and jives there is a lot of unnecessary crap flying around. Please be cool.

What does Beveridge do "operationally"..make the tea??

But Id have to admit that was rather funny. Im sure Andrew got a chuckle out of that.

my complaint was with the overly positive spin put on the casino's actions, which wasn't supported by the facts, statements or opinions available at the time.

Available to you at the time. Lets not underestimate what connections that jetset, I, Spearmaster, whomever, may have. And I dont think any of us would lay all of our cards down on the table. I always try to have an ace up my sleeve Give jetset a break; he works his ass off to provide a news service that is second to none in this industry.

None of this explains why there are affiliates that are not being paid - and prior testimony from affiliates in this thread notwithstanding I keep hearing of additional cases.

Good point. And if there affiliates not getting paid, by all means please let me know here, via email, or the PAB.

So far, there have been a handful of complaints that have come through me but like it was mentioned earlier in this thread. Handful or not if the casino is doing something wrong its wrong.

Another thing, this thread should be made mandatory reading for all casino operators. Besides some of the unnecessary emotionalisms, there are a number of informative and well-thought out posts. Thanks to all for making this a groovy place to be.

I just wish it were under different circumstances. No one likes seeing a damn fine casino thats run by some really great people get pummeled and slammed around. And no one likes seeing players getting jerked around either (evil or not). Its pretty sad.

 

[Lurkio]

Oi ..Mr Beverage..

Milk..no sugar.

 

[dominique]

Hey, it was the caisnos that came up with the bonus business model, why blame the players for taking the bait?

Who is blaming the player for anything in my post? Not me.

I don't know what you read into that, but that was about the furthest from my mind of all possible deductions.

I am blaming the online casinos for having painted themselves into a corner with totally irrational ways of doing business.

They need to learn from the land casinos how to give gifts correctly.

Bonuses aren't gifts anymore - for the majority of online players they have become traps.

 

[rkayn]

Who is blaming the player for anything in my post? Not me.

I don't know what you read into that, but that was about the furthest from my mind of all possible deductions.

I am blaming the online casinos for having painted themselves into a corner with totally irrational ways of doing business.

They need to learn from the land casinos how to give gifts correctly.

Bonuses aren't gifts anymore - for the majority of online players they have become traps.

I believe that only his first paragraph was in direct response to the sentence of yours he quoted. The rest of his post was not directed at you.

 

[dirk_dangerous]

Who is blaming the player for anything in my post? Not me.

My apologies dominique. Only the first paragraph of my post was a response to your post. The rest of the post was directed at Integritys attempts to blame the players for their situation. I know you aren't one to blame players.

 

[Vesuvio]

Give jetset a break; he works his ass off to provide a news service that is second to none in this industry.

Fair enough. I respect Jetset and didn't mean for this to get out of hand - I was only disagreeing with the content of one news story/editorial.

 

[rkayn]

I think that you may see more and more PABs, as the 7 day period specified in their audit E-mail has now expired. I did one yesterday, after my 3/18 E-mail asking the status of my withdrawals was responded to with a form E-mail that didn't address my question.

I don't see any reason to bore anyone here with the details of my own problematic experience with Integrity, but I did want to bring up something that I thought of when I was PABing that I haven't seen on this thread yet. I signed up with Cooks and Kingdom through an affiliate link with

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

.

Do they check affiliate websites before OKing them? Do they at least look at the URL? How can they OK a site like that as an affiliate and then turn around and pretend to be surprised when people who sign up from that site (and/or others like it) play there for the bonuses - and then try to use that as some pathetic justification for stealing any winnings? All when you play exactly as their agent recommends.

Let me note that as of today, over 10 days after their "audit" was announced, the affiliate links at that site still work. I guess Integrity actually doesn't mind people "bonus hunting" if they are depositing. Just as long as those players don't then have the temerity to ask for a withdrawal.

 

[bonustreak]

To other affiliates waiting we were paid our affiliate money today, thanks!

 

[Wes Side]

Implementing the bonus account was not helpful to anyone in the first place and very confusing to players. You can see some of the confusion here: Outdated URL (Invalid) ,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

,

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

(this one mostly relates to the even worse system at the Casino Rewards group which I think implemented the system slightly before the Integrity group)

Bonuses that require a college degree to make sense of are probably not helping casinos. I know a bunch of "bonus hunters," and they are probably the few who actually take the time to look at the terms and conditions and plan accordingly. Regular players who get screwed over due to a small piece of T&C fine-print will probably never play at said casino again. Casinos that use an inane bonus requirement are shooting themselves in the foot.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret: there is one casino out there that knows how to conduct business well and balances the line well enough that bonus hunters play there during non-bonus times just to avoid being banned from future reloads. Let me repeat that. "Bonus hunters" play at the casino even if there is no bonus. They give back to the casino and play there for fun when they feel like playing for fun. This business model apparently works very well for all. Other casinos make you jump through so many hoops and offer such lame reloads that they aren't worth the bother.

Seriously, the current majority of bonus structures are akin to casinos taking drastic measures against card-counters over the years. They go so overboard and alienate so many people that it's often obvious they don't understand the game and don't know what they are doing. I am continually unsurprised that the people who know the least about casino games are the people who work at casinos.

I have no money at the Cook's group, but my brother and a friend does. My friend played half the signup bonus on slot machines that have a big player disadvantage. No real bonus hunter would dare play a slot. His money is still frozen anyway because he played some blackjack along with it. I guaran-f'n-tee you that if Cook's takes the bonus or winnings from anyone who played the bonus on the casino's terms, they are done. Cook's, don't shoot yourself in the foot more than you already have. You can still save your reputation on this. Suck it up and hire someone who knows what they are doing.

 

[555YY]

Like I said, CC could have avoided all this; my offer to online casinos still stands $2000 an hour plus expenses, and I will solve all your promotion problems

would you like that in your bonus account?

i too, can offer a easy solution for the casinos regarding bonuses

i only charge 1k per hr

however, i also require a 6 foot swedish masseuse named helga

 

[Chatmaster]

Another thing, this thread should be made mandatory reading for all casino operators. Besides some of the unnecessary emotionalisms, there are a number of informative and well-thought out posts. Thanks to all for making this a groovy place to be.

This has been noted and fully supported!

 

[jetset]

Lurkio, that response to my mind shows just how unreasonable and lacking in logic your post is, but then your main priority consistently appears to be as confrontational as you can in getting your often quaint ideas across. It's your trade mark and you work at it assiduously.

You seem to be someone working within the industry, and that makes your rather arrogant discounting of these directors and their close operational involvement with eCOGRA all the more surprising.

I can't believe it is ignorance because your knowledge has to be better than that. Your insistence on claiming that Microgaming calls all the shots despite the involvement of another very significant industry corporate (and more on the way by the looks of things) must also be the product of something more than being ill-informed.

However, on to more useful and thought provoking matters - this thread does present some really useful perspectives and I join the view that casino operators should take the time to sift through it, discarding the inevitable personal shots but benefitting from some solid ideas.

 

[caruso]

No one likes seeing a damn fine casino thats run by some really great people get pummeled and slammed around. And no one likes seeing players getting jerked around either (evil or not). Its pretty sad.

I agree with the second bit, but the evidence of the thread doesn't support in any way the notion that this is a fine place, Bryan. Really great people don't steal, and unless ALL of these claims are fraudulent - which clearly is not the case - that is what they are doing: stealing. Stealing from one player is no better than stealing from a thousand. I'm aware you know more about the behind-the-scenes shinanigans than us, but as far as the matter of theft from non rule-breaking players goes, there's little more we need to know: Vesuvio (at the very least) played by the rules; the casino is trying to rob him. No matter what may be known behind the scenes, all WE need to know is those two facts to establish that this operation, by design or desperation (the latter I believe), has moved over to the dark side.

Once fine, quite possibly. Once great people, maybe. Clearly, no longer on either count.

 

[Vesuvio]

Vesuvio (at the very least) played by the rules; the casino is trying to rob him.

I'm not actually affected by this personally, but replace my name by a large number of others and the statement stands.

I don't take any pleasure in seeing Captain Cooks & co. in trouble. They were a casino with good customer service, although from my own 'insider' knowledge of the industry I'd say they were grossly mismanaged with regard to bonuses. It's ironic that they seem to be struggling only now when their bonuses are far less attractive than they were for months last year (they were then easily the most generous MG casino if you knew how to handle the bonus account).

Perhaps they can still dig themselves out of this hole if they pay out everyone who played by their rules, though it'll be difficult to overcome the PR disaster even if they're still well-funded. It continually suprises me that casinos aren't willing to meet the small expense of hiring someone competent to represent themselves on boards like this one (and in the industry as a whole). An ability to use English articulately and some understanding of PR would seem to be prerequisites.

 

[ICL Rep]

Hi All and thankyou for the very very very in depth anaylsis, speculation, advice, suggestions, support and thoughts regarding our business. Believe it or not, I am a part of senior management at Integrity Casinos.

It has taken me about 5 hours to read the full thread here ... wow.

This is not an "official" statement. I read the thread and I felt compelled to acknowledge all of your comments, thankyou again. Some of it, as many of you have pointed out, is compulsory reading for any operator. In particular, I am reviewing my perspective on bonuses in general - bonuses (not our solvency) being the crux of the issue - and, in particular, our response to the surge in "advantage play" at our sites. This, I gather, is the intention of the thread in the first place.

Forgive me but this post will not answer the questions you have raised. We hope to do so over the next day or two. For the moment, rest assured that anyone with a genuine and legitimate claim to funds in a casino account at any of our sites will have that claim honoured and that The Captain, The King, and Classic will be sailing the Seven Seas (and the other respective metaphors) for many years to come. I encourage you to PAB if you feel that you have been dealt with unfairly - our intention is not to steal or misappropriate funds.

Our intention is to change the way we do things so that we are not in the position of channeling resources away from customer service and into fraud prevention - which is where we find ourselves now. We are proud of our reputation as a fun, service-oriented group. Its unfortunate that our reputation is in jeopardy - obviously I wish it wasnt. I hope that those of you who were loyal members of the Captain's Crew in the past, can stick with us.

Btw, obviously I am a little out of touch with the forums because when I began the investigation into the unusual trends we picked up, I innocently referred to it as an "audit" not realising that this was a loaded term on the forums - my bad. My apologies for the delays in responding to your queries and withdrawals. Its hard to believe, I know, but the review of accounts is complex and time-consuming - more so than we thought.

Good luck wherever you are playing!

 

[Vesuvio]

For the moment, rest assured that anyone with a genuine and legitimate claim to funds in a casino account at any of our sites will have that claim honoured

I know you weren't planning to answer questions at this point, but can you confirm that players who met all your terms and conditions while autoplaying BJ have a legitimate claim to funds?

 

[Petunia]

** had a whole mail typed out and then lost it grrrrr!! The gyst of this was:

1) Tarnished reputations is a result of ineffective management
2) I hate the word good luck - it makes me feel like you know something I SHOULD - like a sleezy salesman saying "trust me" (Same goes for the 'believe it or not' line. It is a ripleys line... )
3) You should try and have foresight, as hindsight is a bummer especially when it leave dirt-tracks
4) Don't treat pple like mushrooms by feeding them junk and keeping them in the dark!
5) Good intentions and bad executions makes for a lot of 'buts'
just my 2c **

** EDIT: And the major issue was not about the bonusses, but payment of winnings + Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.... (or in this case operator?!)

 

[caruso]

You have been found to be skimming our promotions and using them for financial gain or a means of income rather then for entertainment purposes. You WILL have your deposits refunded but anything above the deposit amount will be retained by the casino.

Please explain what "skimming" means. Do you mean "winning with"?

Please explain how you establish that that a player has used a promo as a "means of income" and not been..."entertained".

Please explain how either of these...offences?...grant the casino the right to steal winnings and refund deposits.

Please explain where your T & C disallow whatever "skimming" means.

Assuming that a player, guilty of "skimming", lost his deposit, presumably his equally "fraudulent" play would entitle him to a deposit refund?

In early March, three of the casino brands operated by Integrity Casinos (Captain Cooks Casino, Casino Kingdom and Casino Classic) were found to have suffered a significant amount of suspect wagering.

Please explain "suspect wagering".

 

[universexf6]

I actually couldn't fathom even a speck who the he:: those
who are attacking this casino are and of what they are EXACTLY guilty of
because by reading all what happened including the commnet from the rep
above these "casino attackers" look very shady it sounds like they are
almost non existent but existent like Poltergeist. Well.... so could rep or anybody related with the casino clarify "WHO THESE ATTACKING YOUR CASINOS ARE AND WHAT WRONG EXACTLY BET BY BET THEY ARE DOING??"
Please?

 

[120sam]

In particular, I am reviewing my perspective on bonuses in general - bonuses (not our solvency) being the crux of the issue - and, in particular, our response to the surge in "advantage play" at our sites...

Advantage play is taking advantage of bonus offers whilst following the casino's terms and conditions. If you don't like it, change your bonus offers and terms and conditions. But not retrospectively please, it makes you look like a clip joint.

...Our intention is to change the way we do things so that we are not in the position of channeling resources away from customer service and into fraud prevention - which is where we find ourselves now.

Fraud is multiple accounts and false identities. If you locked the accounts and kept the winnings of players who do that you'd have the support of many on this forum.

The current problem is that your casinos are acting as if they're entitled to treat advantage players as if they were fraudsters. They aren't. Please understand the distinction, everyone else does.

 

[jetset]

Good post, 120sam.

I am trying to find something positive in this break in ICL's silence, and I'm hoping it is this:

QUOTE: I am reviewing my perspective on bonuses in general - bonuses (not our solvency) being the crux of the issue - and, in particular, our response to the surge in "advantage play" at our sites. UNQUOTE

Clearly a radical change in this bonus disqualification policy is necessary if the casinos in the ICL group are to have any hope of regaining credibility and reputation.

 

[amandajm]

ICL REP

Seeing as you posted at thwe Meisters..
If the surge in advantage play is multiple accounts, then i suggest you make a public undertaking to readdress all closed accounts suspected of "advantage play by opening multiple accounts" instantly with the Meister if a complaint is received by the Meister.

If you are trying to take the money of anyone not involved in multiple accounts and fraud, it will cost you the rest of your reputation.

 

[The Dude]

Hi ICL Rep,

And welcome to the forum. I hope that you'll be able to shead some well needed assurance to the masses that players will be treated fairly, and to answer some of the questions that have been posed.

In turn, I hope that members of the forum will abide by the rules of this forum and not turn this into an ass-kicking fest. Thanks!

 

[dominique]

Ok, I owe an apology:

My apologies dominique. Only the first paragraph of my post was a response to your post. The rest of the post was directed at Integritys attempts to blame the players for their situation. I know you aren't one to blame players.
__________________
dirk_dangerous

My bad, I should have read more carefully.

IC rep, thank you for dropping in. I realize you have a tough audience here. I hope everyone will be civilized so there will be an informative exchange that leaves both sides with something constructive. When that happens, then message boards shine and are as useful as they can be.

I am afraid I won't be here to take part in this - I am leaving for Europe tomorrow and will not take my laptop with me.

I bet when I get back on the 10th of April I'll have hours of reading to do...

Have fun guys, and I hope to see a thread chuckfull of constructive exchanges here!

 

[The Dude]

Hi Dom, have fun. See you in a couple of weeks.

Moving on...for the record I have eight "Pitch a Bitches". Two of the complaints are general complaints, not a specific "I'm getting effed up the ying yang" sort of a complaint - but a complaint that they don't like this situation. The other six are players who feel they have been targeted. I hope to have these resolved shortly.

Eight complaints ain't a hell of a lot - but if they are legitimate complaints, then this is eight too many.

 

[Lurkio]

Lurkio, that response to my mind shows just how unreasonable and lacking in logic your post is, but then your main priority consistently appears to be as confrontational as you can in getting your often quaint ideas across. It's your trade mark and you work at it assiduously.

You seem to be someone working within the industry, and that makes your rather arrogant discounting of these directors and their close operational involvement with eCOGRA all the more surprising.

I can't believe it is ignorance because your knowledge has to be better than that. Your insistence on claiming that Microgaming calls all the shots despite the involvement of another very significant industry corporate (and more on the way by the looks of things) must also be the product of something more than being ill-informed.

However, on to more useful and thought provoking matters - this thread does present some really useful perspectives and I join the view that casino operators should take the time to sift through it, discarding the inevitable personal shots but benefitting from some solid ideas.

QUAINT???!! now you are getting personal!! LOL

My post may well be unreasonable and arrogant..but it isnt lacking in logic...and I dont see anyone else running to their defence..and for the record I think your losing the plot a bit in this thread !.why are you SO defensive?

Now if there is a thread describing what these directors do that will "educate" me plse point me in the right direction..Im all eyes.

Id forgotten all about ecogra already but lets dicuss!

Seeing that you are getting paranoid about me now, and throwing around innuendo, which is hilarious , as its the very thing you get so pissy about...what does this mean ?

"..must also be the product of something more than being ill-informed.?"

Do you actually think I am an operator who has had a run in with ecogra???

 

[profiler]

I don't yet know whether ICL intends to ''target'' me. I emailed them this week, but received a standard reply that the audit is taking longer than anticipated or something like that. In the meantime i still have a cashout total of GBP 540 pending. I will PAB on friday if i have not received a decision by then. It will then have been two weeks since the audit announcement.

 

[kiolka]

Expect more PAB's in the next couple of days. Apparently players are now receiving emails that audit is almost complete and that their winnings are being taken away although they met the T+C's of the bonus offer. This is extremely unfair IMO since some of these players lost money (which wasn't refunded obviously) at one casino, and have won money (which isn't being paid out) at another casino within the group.