Casino standards

Would a Flagship Casinomeister casino be an automatic choice?

  • No. Those standards won't make any difference to my experience

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • No. But I would play there like I play most casinos

    Votes: 13 34.2%
  • Yes. As long as the software had no rogue casinos

    Votes: 8 21.1%
  • Yes. I would make this casino my go to Casino.

    Votes: 13 34.2%

  • Total voters
    38

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
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:oops:)

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:p)

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

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
This would be an easy section to keep tabs of, as it would be empty:D

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

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
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

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Location
Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
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

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
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.
 

skiny

Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Location
Canada
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

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
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

Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Location
Canada
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

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
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.
 

skiny

Banned User - violation of <a href="http://www.cas
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Location
Canada
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.

Well, personally I just can't see Casinomeister hosting an accredited, more accredited and most accredited casino list.

If any criteria is important enough for one it should be important enough for all. You can either have an X,Y,Z list of additional features and services to set them a step ahead or make them required and like I said, making the list next to impossible to achieve will only serve to kick half the casinos off the list.

That's just my opinion.
 

rouletteguy

Experienced Member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Location
Ontario
Wouldn't a better solution be to have casino's audited by a neutral 3rd party that WE trust? A trusted member here, Somebody awhile back tried to get Brian to do this but I think he's got enough to deal with. We want that inside info nobody seems to be able to get, Such as 1) is roulette and BJ RTP or random, 2) How eCogra (or other) determines randomness and compliance
Things like that. Silence from operators only leads players to assume the worst.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
@rouletteguy. Recommend you browse through the eCOGRA website, which has a wealth of articles and information on the questions you ask above. If you don't find the answers you need, then I would recommend you contact Tex (the disputes and admin manager) or Andrew (the CEO) whom I have always found to be very forthcoming about what they do and how they do it.

Regarding the idea of a 'flagship' among the accredited casinos here, I would suggest that is not necessary and probably not practical. Bryan ensures that he physically meets with operators before they enter the accredited section, and I know that he and Max research these guys before taking them on.

The problem with accreditation is that occasionally things slip (enterprises are run by people, and people are fallible) That doesn't mean that accreditation is in general a waste of time, and the proportion of good experiences at CM accredited casinos appears to very significantly outweigh the opposite from what I can see.

I think it goes without saying that players should keep their wits about them and their fingers on the industry pulse in addition to using accreditation status as a guide.
 

PaaskeDenmark

Always think positive
webmeister
PABnoaccred
CAG
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Location
UnKnown
Now that we are on about casino standards. Is there anyone who can tell me which playtech casino, who pays out quickest, i mean fastest withdrawal to moneybooker wallet.
Or is it the same for them all, with the horrible 3-4 days zzzzz
Just because i want to start playing there again. Lots of new nice slots. Seems to have ok payout after what i have found in forums :)
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Thanks all for the input here - it's much appreciated. :thumbsup:

One problem is that different players care for different things. Some feel that a fast payout is what counts, for others it may be white listed licensing, or the company has to be publicly traded.

Sometimes - even when a casino meets super high standards, they fall short of what we'd expect from an accredited casino. William Hill for instance. Their B&M counterparts are on every street corner in the UK, they're publicly traded, whitelisted, pretty much solid as a rock, but you won't find them here. Mainly because I feel they have distanced themselves from the player. Their customer support is less than acceptable, and they are just too big to bother with us (and you) it seems.

I have kicked around the idea of having a platinum level or super-accredited list, but what would be the criteria? White-listed by the UK? Publicly traded? Casino rep logs in daily? I try to let players make their own decisions by giving them as much information as I can, or at least give them the tools where they can find what they need. That's what it's all about.

Like Jetset said - casinos are run by people and people are fallible. No matter how high you may perceive what something is, all it takes is a screwup or two and you're on your ass.

If you think there should be additional columns of information in the accredited section, please let me know and I'll see what I can do:
http://www.casinomeister.com/accredited_casinos.php#mg
 

love2winalot

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Location
Philippines/Visiting Las vegas
Hiya: I think if you are going to have accredited casinos, and then super accredited casinos, the standards should be a little flexable, and able to be met by any casino on the current accrdited list. Being publicly traded, as example. I don't think, "inset casino here", should not be able to be super accredited because they can not be publicy traded, through no fault of their own. and things like that.

I think, "a list", we set standards, of witch a certain % of those must be met. let's face it, some Accredited casino's are not going to be to happy if their competition gets Super accredited, and they did not, and had No Chance to. Maybe we all could give suggestions, and then you make the list, and send it to all the accredited casino's, and see what they do?

As example. INetBet is Accredited. You can go to banking, and fill out withdraw option for Overnight express. ie. a check. But guess what? That option is not available to use if you live in America. It, and more importantly, does NOT mention this little fact to you anywhere on the banking section, or website.:confused:

And there are other things like this at other casino's. So, imhop, to be Super Accredited, if feedback is submitted to YOU, or Spear, or max, or anyone, and that is passed on to the casino Rep. and they make the needed change, this would be one standard to get on, or stay on, the super accredited list. because things like that affect more than just one player.
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
@rouletteguy. Recommend you browse through the eCOGRA website, which has a wealth of articles and information on the questions you ask above. If you don't find the answers you need, then I would recommend you contact Tex (the disputes and admin manager) or Andrew (the CEO) whom I have always found to be very forthcoming about what they do and how they do it.

Regarding the idea of a 'flagship' among the accredited casinos here, I would suggest that is not necessary and probably not practical. Bryan ensures that he physically meets with operators before they enter the accredited section, and I know that he and Max research these guys before taking them on.

The problem with accreditation is that occasionally things slip (enterprises are run by people, and people are fallible) That doesn't mean that accreditation is in general a waste of time, and the proportion of good experiences at CM accredited casinos appears to very significantly outweigh the opposite from what I can see.

I think it goes without saying that players should keep their wits about them and their fingers on the industry pulse in addition to using accreditation status as a guide.

I am not saying there should be A flagship casino among the accredited list - I am suggesting creating a higher tier that demands criteria above and beyond what is needed in the accredited list.
Nor am I suggesting the accredited list is anything less than useful (certainly not a waste of time)
I don't believe having another tier would devalue the accredited list since the criteria required for this would remain the same.

Behind closed doors the Casinos on the accredited list would no doubt be peeved and knocking on Bryan's proverbial door (Casinos won't do anything to improve standards if they don't see how they will benefit) so perhaps a way around that is to have an open discussion that involves Reps from these casinos - there they have to face us and explain why they won't incorporate certain standards that are generally seen as basic player rights.
They can't just say, "screw you, we don't care" which is apparently the way they feel since I have yet to see a casino voluntarily improve standards beyond what it believes it can get away with and still reap the benefits of respectability the accredited list affords.

I like the idea of having this empty space for flagship casinos(or whatever term suits) to fill. That way it is not as if they are being forced - it is up to them if they want to take their place in this section.
What other industry watchdog actually lets the industry decide if they want to improve their own standards? (Who could possibly complain in principle?)

Thanks all for the input here - it's much appreciated. :thumbsup:

One problem is that different players care for different things. Some feel that a fast payout is what counts, for others it may be white listed licensing, or the company has to be publicly traded.

Sometimes - even when a casino meets super high standards, they fall short of what we'd expect from an accredited casino. William Hill for instance. Their B&M counterparts are on every street corner in the UK, they're publicly traded, whitelisted, pretty much solid as a rock, but you won't find them here. Mainly because I feel they have distanced themselves from the player. Their customer support is less than acceptable, and they are just too big to bother with us (and you) it seems.

I have kicked around the idea of having a platinum level or super-accredited list, but what would be the criteria? White-listed by the UK? Publicly traded? Casino rep logs in daily? I try to let players make their own decisions by giving them as much information as I can, or at least give them the tools where they can find what they need. That's what it's all about.

Like Jetset said - casinos are run by people and people are fallible. No matter how high you may perceive what something is, all it takes is a screwup or two and you're on your ass.

If you think there should be additional columns of information in the accredited section, please let me know and I'll see what I can do:
http://www.casinomeister.com/accredited_casinos.php#mg

The criteria would be debated in the open forum and inclusive of players, Reps and of course yourself. I think this would be a very healthy debate.
We could begin by having a general suggestions thread or poll to determine the most important criteria before serious debate began.
No open season on bashing anyone just straight up sensible suggestions that are based in the real world - not some abstract notion of fairness.

Certain things such as cashout criteria should be limited to processing time (no 24 hour delay with reversible options might be one), and weekly max payouts and jackpot payouts. Quick cashouts are fantastic but impossible to regulate with some casinos still serving the US (we need to be realistic)

Things like RTP information in paytables, published independent audits and whitelisted licences are givens for me because they appear to be sensible objective standards to want but maybe Reps can change my mind?

I think any area that is subjectively based would be very difficult to have as an extra criteria but a discussion would help.

We know all to well that people and Casinos fall from grace but it is what it is.
That happens now with the accredited list anyway but a casino that went out of its way to pursue higher standards would surely be a casino less likely to slip. The logic being the higher your standards the more responsible and transparent you are - otherwise what is the point of the accredited list?

I don't think adding a column or two to the accredited list would achieve the desired results. An empty podium and an unawarded gold medal for a champion should prove a decent incentive.

The way I see it everybody wins - even the casinos, especially those that have the vision and desire to set themselves apart.:thumbsup:
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
Hiya: I think if you are going to have accredited casinos, and then super accredited casinos, the standards should be a little flexable, and able to be met by any casino on the current accrdited list. Being publicly traded, as example. I don't think, "inset casino here", should not be able to be super accredited because they can not be publicy traded, through no fault of their own. and things like that.

I think, "a list", we set standards, of witch a certain % of those must be met. let's face it, some Accredited casino's are not going to be to happy if their competition gets Super accredited, and they did not, and had No Chance to. Maybe we all could give suggestions, and then you make the list, and send it to all the accredited casino's, and see what they do?

As example. INetBet is Accredited. You can go to banking, and fill out withdraw option for Overnight express. ie. a check. But guess what? That option is not available to use if you live in America. It, and more importantly, does NOT mention this little fact to you anywhere on the banking section, or website.:confused:

And there are other things like this at other casino's. So, imhop, to be Super Accredited, if feedback is submitted to YOU, or Spear, or max, or anyone, and that is passed on to the casino Rep. and they make the needed change, this would be one standard to get on, or stay on, the super accredited list. because things like that affect more than just one player.

This is exactly right.
The idea is not to alienate Casinos currently in the accredited list and any extra criteria need to be achievable by all.
That said though it is not good enough IMO for a Casino for example to say our software provider does not provide RTP in paytables, not our problem.
They should be demanding it because it is known it is something players not only want but is basic information that should be available.

I think any discussion would be better served in the open forum for many reasons. It is important that players understand certain limitations on the casinos and what is and what is not possible or reasonably expected.
Closed doors discussion would give the casinos no reason to move on anything - Bryan can only lean on casinos individually, as a group they are too powerful an open discussion that includes the forum balances that power.
Basically they become accountable for any decisions on added criteria.
 

maxd

Complaints (PAB) Manager
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Location
Saltirelandia
Max misunderstood the OP and went off on a tangent largely unrelated to the topic at hand:
I think any discussion would be better served in the open forum for many reasons. ... Closed doors discussion would give the casinos no reason to move on anything ....

If I understand you correctly I have to say this: you obviously have not heard of or do not understand the Pitch-A-Bitch process.

Our Pitch-A-Bitch process is a little over 300 cases a year, roughly US$0.5M recovered for players and affiliates, 99% of it worked out in private with no open anything ever. You can look at the records yourself here: PAB Archives

And why does that process work so well? Exactly because it is private: the casinos can share info with us that they could not and would not discuss in public. Casino people are usually fairly trusting of us and our closed process, especially once they become familiar with it. I can tell you with certainty that they do not feel the same way about the forums.

From personal experience I'd say at least 80% -- and I'm being very conservative here, it's almost certainly more like 90%+ -- of the casino people that we discuss our closed Pitch-A-Bitch cases with would never go near the forums. They tell us so: "discuss with you, no problem; debate it out on the open forums, forget it!" So at least 80% of our cases, yielding some US$400,000 or more for players, would go 'poof!' just like that.

So, I believe it's safe to say that both I and the vast majority of the casino people I deal with would strongly disagree that these cases would be better done out in the open.

If that were to happen, the structure of the process were to change from a private to a public one, here's what you'd see: the vast majority of the casino people we deal with would become 'unavailable for comment', the PAB cases would linger and die, and the monies recovered for players would shrink dramatically.

So who would be "better served" by this? Forum readers I suspect, and that's about it.

... I have yet to see a casino voluntarily improve standards beyond what it believes it can get away with and still reap the benefits of respectability the accredited list affords.

With all due respect I suggest you keep looking because they are there. In fairness to others I don't think it cool to mention them by name but some of those casinos have figured out that if they "voluntarily improve standards" they get more customers. And then they get richer which, of course, is the world's best incentive for them to keep doing it.
 
Last edited:

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
If I understand you correctly I have to say this: you obviously have not heard of or do not understand the Pitch-A-Bitch process.

...
That's for complaints - I agree that a private discussion followed by a public report later can benefit everyone involved - for actual real complaints. But I think that a debate on standards for listed casinos is more effective in public.

Especially when it comes to "proper" licensing, third party audits, casino behavior etc.
 
Top