Casino standards

[maxd]

... I simply do not see your counterpoints as valid ... Look forward to your PM.

On second thought I think I'll pass.

 

[Rusty]

On second thought I think I'll pass.

Why because I don't think the points you make are valid and I have set out why?
I even accepted you offer for PM and you send me a petty message declining even that.
Frankly, I have had more productive and intelligent conversations with 10 year olds.

I'm not surprised in the least though, it was obvious from the start you had no interest in an open discussion unless it suited your own agenda.
You can deny that if you like but unless you make valid arguments instead of spurious accusations of twisted logic and recalcitrance I think it will remain pretty damn obvious to anyone who cares to read this thread.
It is a matter of record and that suits me fine.

Sad indictment on this forum though if truth be told and where are all these casinos that you say are chomping at the bit to improve standards?
Not a Rep in sight.

I guess I will just have to reevaluate just how serious this forum and the casinos are about improving standards and leave it at that.

 

[Casinomeister]

Why because I don't think the points you make are valid and I have set out why?
I even accepted you offer for PM and you send me a petty message declining even that.
Frankly, I have had more productive and intelligent conversations with 10 year olds.

I'm not surprised in the least though, it was obvious from the start you had no interest in an open discussion unless it suited your own agenda.
You can deny that if you like but unless you make valid arguments instead of spurious accusations of twisted logic and recalcitrance I think it will remain pretty damn obvious to anyone who cares to read this thread.
It is a matter of record and that suits me fine.

Sad indictment on this forum though if truth be told and where are all these casinos that you say are chomping at the bit to improve standards?
Not a Rep in sight.

I guess I will just have to reevaluate just how serious this forum and the casinos are about improving standards and leave it at that.

Hey Rusty,

Actually this one is my baby since I set the policies here - always with input from members No need to hammer Max since I think he is just opting out of the discussion - he's busy with a number of PABs at the moment and this is more my realm.

Why haven't i-Gaming reps been participating here? Could be that I haven't drawn their attention to the thread. I plan to - just haven't done so yet. That could be a good reason why they haven't chimed in. I just haven't had the time to fully jump into this topic since this one is important and needs my undivided attention.

One problem with this thread is that it has taken a few swerves that have made this a real broad subject. This may call for a more concise thread being started or a synopsis made on this one.

I'm getting the newsletter out at the moment perhaps someone can assist in the above

That would be very cool.

 

[path]

An interesting and informed debate and thanks to those who have contributed thus far.

VWM quite correctly points out that 32Red would fail on two of the original criteria (as suggested by Rusty) and I would like to take this opportunity of explaining our thinking in these areas.

I do vaguely remember there being a poll here (towards the end of last year) on whether the ‘return to player’ or ‘payout percentage’ should be displayed for each and every game. I distinctly remember falling into the ‘undecided’ category and while I am fully in favour of adding and increasing transparency across all aspects of the industry I am undecided as to whether this measure would assist.

The actual 'statistical personality' (Payout Percentage, Volatility and Hit Rate) of a game can be considered the intellectual property of the provider and as a consequence I am sure they'll be loathe to release the exact details purely around competitive issues/pressures. A way around this would be to apply a range for these figures, but then that sort of defeats the purpose.
Again, I do recall reading that Bryan raised this very subject with Microgaming when he recently met with them on the Isle of Man and their response was very much that they wouldn’t do it as they need to protect their intellectual property.

If a payout percentage is posted for each game, I would be concerned about how that is interpreted and understood by the player. There's already some confusion in how players view this; some see it as 'expected' and others see it as an indicator as to how the game is currently performing. If a player sees this as an 'expected' rate of payout, how will that leave them feeling when their gameplay falls well short of this level? The tendency to 'cry foul' will potentially increase in turn leading to an increase in dissatisfied players. Equally, will this 'expected' rate also be seen as an 'advertised' rate, thus guaranteeing this level of return in the player's mind?
The latter points, I am sure, could be overcome by providing detailed explanations elsewhere on the site but will anyone bother to read them?

On the point of excluded games being locked out by the casino software, I am assuming that this will be for those occasions when a bonus is in play.

The Microgaming software, through its Bonus System, does allow restrictions on bet size, game weightings and game exclusions to be put in place and these settings all operate whilst there is a bonus in play. In the main, these settings are based on a percentage of the bonus awarded and can be set by individual game.

We don’t limit play on those games that do not count towards a bonus but we have a number of games (Craps and some of the Mega Spin slots) that carry a zero contribution towards the playthrough requirement of a bonus. These games, and the associated contribution, are clearly displayed in all the relevant Terms and Conditions of a bonus. So, while not physically locked it is clear that any play on the relevant game doesn’t count towards the playthrough requirements and I think this achieves the criteria as suggested.

We have chosen not to utilise the restrictions on bet size (within the casino software) as we don’t want to put any unnecessary barriers in the way of the true entertainment oriented gamblers. Our belief is that the first time experience of such an individual would surely be tainted when they attempt to place, say, a £50 bet and the software prevents them from so doing and displays a less than friendly error message. This is a moment of truth for a new player to 32Red and we want the experience to be as smooth and enjoyable as possible.

We do have a limit on stakes in place for play with our Welcome Bonus and this limit is only ever imposed when it comes to a player who is undoubtedly and systematically attempting to gain an advantage through bonus play and is implemented at the point of cash-in.

I trust that you see our reasons, for failing on two of the suggested criteria, as being valid and I look forward to seeing how this debate on Casino Standards unfolds.

Kind regards
Pat

 

[winbig]

If nobody wants to display the current payout % for a game, because of how players may interpret it, then why in the world does MGS have a "temperature" gauge to the right of each game, saying whether it's "due" for a jackpot hit, or not? That can be interpreted as either being "ice cold" or "ready." It's up to each player to decide. imo, this is sort of a 'false hope' indicator, and it could be weeks or months before that particular slot decides to pay off a jackpot spin.

So basically, what's the difference in having this temperature meter and displaying the current RTP%?

 

[felicie]

What would you all do without a stupid question to break your train of thought? winbig do you mean displayed somewhere other than what's on the 'payout' page of each slot? I never look at that page as it might start to ruin my feeling of 'random' or what is left of it anyway.

 

[winbig]

What would you all do without a stupid question to break your train of thought? winbig do you mean displayed somewhere other than what's on the 'payout' page of each slot? I never look at that page as it might start to ruin my feeling of 'random' or what is left of it anyway.

naw, not a stupid question, you got me thinking...lol

I guess it could be anywhere that the player could see it

 

[tesla]

I find one thing that quite a few accredited casinos are missing is great customer service. I've had numerous experiences with accredited casinos where the customer support isn't knowledgeable about what is going with the casino, doesn't report problems to the right department, or doesn't transfer the customer to the right person. Great customer service is the hallmark of many respected companies and I think this would be another standard to add to accredited casinos.

 

[jetset]

I guess that a resistance to change may also be at work with at least some providers, and that is something that will only be overcome if there is evidence of a real business reward (like not losing players to competitors that have agreed to publish RTP, for instance.)

That said, I can appreciate the potential problems raised by PatH from his 32Red and operator/provider perspective, and he is imo to be commended for being sufficiently interested to make a contribution.

Like Rusty, I hope other operators will come forward so that we can all achieve a more rounded view in this thread.

This is an interesting discussion in that it also raises questions on how player demands can effectively be defined and realised. Take for example Tesla's comment above regarding "great customer service" - something I value highly.

If this included in the criteria, how does one distil a subjective experience for a single individual into a fair and balanced judgement across a range of players significant enough to award or deny a superior level of accreditation? Does one assess it on the basis of available attributes or empirical experience in using the facility, and how?

@Rusty - may I suggest you keep it cool, man - I appreciate that you're defending a concept for which you have some passion, but there's no need to get aggressive in regard to the forum with comments like "Sad indictment on this forum though if truth be told..."

 

[felicie]

I find one thing that quite a few accredited casinos are missing is great customer service. I've had numerous experiences with accredited casinos where the customer support isn't knowledgeable about what is going with the casino, doesn't report problems to the right department, or doesn't transfer the customer to the right person. Great customer service is the hallmark of many respected companies and I think this would be another standard to add to accredited casinos.

CS is a big part of it to me also and I don't mean the slurpy bs kind. All it takes generally is one question, problem or cashout to bring out the 'real' cs attitude and I'd rather have someone with less knowledge as long as they are acting in a business like manner and want to help me find the answer than some arrogant jerk that knows it all and treats me like I know nothing more than dirt. I'm not going to deposit anywhere very long that just wants my money and not me. I also believe that a fair share of 'bad cs' may be due to 'bad mouth customers'. I can count on one hand the times I've been treated poorly or rudely in the last five years whether a good casino or shifty one and I figure it is because I always try to treat them the way I want them to treat me.

 

[Simmo!]

Two things occur to me on expected payouts:

Firstly, Wagerworks (IGT) display RTP in 99% of the slot games, and some vary from casino to casino, but it hasn't caused any issues that I've seen posted. Their jackpot payments in installments is another matter mind you, but that could change ...see next point...

Secondly, an amendemnt to the Frank Bill states that RTP would have to be displayed for US facing games in licenced casinos, so - assuming it's successful - it's only going to be a matter of time before its defacto I'd suspect. It was also suggested that licenced casinos would have to pay out wins in full and not in installments if memory serves me correctly.

The Microgaming software, through its Bonus System, does allow restrictions on bet size, game weightings and game exclusions...

Just for clarity Pat, by "game weightings" you mean contribution to the bonus WR I assume, and not RTP: Microgaming doesn't allow operators to alter the RTP of games, right?

 

[skiny]

Does knowing the RTP of every game even really help? I could have a neon blue 99% RTP flashing right in my face and be hitting zero till I'm broke.

"It's the variance... maybe next time you'll be luckier."

 

[jetset]

I suspect that's the sort of question operators/providers may also ask themselves when considering this demand - "how many of our players feel sufficiently strongly about this to implement a change?" and perhaps even: "how many online information sites are prepared to campaign and influence players on this issue?"

For example, they may be asking "how much of a competitive edge does publishing RTP give Wagerworks?"

Kinda hard to quantify in a pragmatic way.

Perhaps there's a case for educating a larger number of players on the pros of publishing RTP?

 

[Simmo!]

For example, they may be asking "how much of a competitive edge does publishing RTP give Wagerworks?"

I don't think it does give WW a player advantage over other software as such, but it does potentially offer a competitive edge between WW casinos which is good for players and casinos IMO. For example, "Enchanted Unicorn" has a default setting of 96.02%, but one casino has it set to 97.39% which, if that was a game I played a lot, I would want to know. If I ran that WW casino, I would actually use this to get an edge in marketing efforts myself.

I think mostly, a player wants to see a published RTP just to feel more confident they are not playing a machine with a stupidly low one.

 

[Rusty]

Does knowing the RTP of every game even really help? I could have a neon blue 99% RTP flashing right in my face and be hitting zero till I'm broke.

"It's the variance... maybe next time you'll be luckier."

That's a very fair point, we would not lose our money any slower.

It is a pretty basic requirement though for a casino to give the player details of the house edge.

Imagine playing at different roulette tables but not being allowed to know how many numbers they had or a Blackjack table that wont tell you how many packs are being used etc.

Nothing to do with expectation IMO and I think it is a disingenuous argument that MGS put up when they say giving the theoretical RTP somehow compromises their design - in fact I would say it is complete nonsense.

The only argument they might offer is that people could back engineer how much of the RTP is tied up in bonus and free spin rounds should they also know the reel layouts but that wouldn't wash - you don't need the RTP to do that because you calculate that from the reel strips and paytable anyway.
They may as well take the paytable away and give the same reason - it is that pathetic I'm afraid.

What really would compromise the design though is someone leaking the algorithms that are used to control the weighting.

Still, is having the theoretical RTP in the paytable of each slot important to players and even if so I think it is definitely lower on the to do list for me than other things.
The variance idea is a sound one and I believe Enzo incorporates it at 3Dice but I dare say MGS would feel that was even more revealing about their design.

 

[Rusty]

I guess that a resistance to change may also be at work with at least some providers, and that is something that will only be overcome if there is evidence of a real business reward (like not losing players to competitors that have agreed to publish RTP, for instance.)

That said, I can appreciate the potential problems raised by PatH from his 32Red and operator/provider perspective, and he is imo to be commended for being sufficiently interested to make a contribution.

Like Rusty, I hope other operators will come forward so that we can all achieve a more rounded view in this thread.

This is an interesting discussion in that it also raises questions on how player demands can effectively be defined and realised. Take for example Tesla's comment above regarding "great customer service" - something I value highly.

If this included in the criteria, how does one distil a subjective experience for a single individual into a fair and balanced judgement across a range of players significant enough to award or deny a superior level of accreditation? Does one assess it on the basis of available attributes or empirical experience in using the facility, and how?

@Rusty - may I suggest you keep it cool, man - I appreciate that you're defending a concept for which you have some passion, but there's no need to get aggressive in regard to the forum with comments like "Sad indictment on this forum though if truth be told..."

It was becoming just that though and when I say forum that included me the mods, the casino Reps, Max and Bryan and all the other members.
I realise I can be a bit intense though so I stepped away for a couple of days and thankfully there are more people starting to get involved now and thanks to PatH for being the first Rep to get their toes wet.
The water is warm and shark free, no fear.

 

[Rusty]

Hey Rusty,

Actually this one is my baby since I set the policies here - always with input from members No need to hammer Max since I think he is just opting out of the discussion - he's busy with a number of PABs at the moment and this is more my realm.

Why haven't i-Gaming reps been participating here? Could be that I haven't drawn their attention to the thread. I plan to - just haven't done so yet. That could be a good reason why they haven't chimed in. I just haven't had the time to fully jump into this topic since this one is important and needs my undivided attention.

One problem with this thread is that it has taken a few swerves that have made this a real broad subject. This may call for a more concise thread being started or a synopsis made on this one.

I'm getting the newsletter out at the moment perhaps someone can assist in the above

That would be very cool.

OK, understood.
I will see if I can find a way to narrow the discussion and limit it to standards the forum consider should be a part of any casino.
Perhaps from there open it up to standards they would like to see.

Don't think I have given up on my idea though.

 

[Rusty]

Two things occur to me on expected payouts:

Firstly, Wagerworks (IGT) display RTP in 99% of the slot games, and some vary from casino to casino, but it hasn't caused any issues that I've seen posted. Their jackpot payments in installments is another matter mind you, but that could change ...see next point...

Secondly, an amendemnt to the Frank Bill states that RTP would have to be displayed for US facing games in licenced casinos, so - assuming it's successful - it's only going to be a matter of time before its defacto I'd suspect. It was also suggested that licenced casinos would have to pay out wins in full and not in installments if memory serves me correctly.



Just for clarity Pat, by "game weightings" you mean contribution to the bonus WR I assume, and not RTP: Microgaming doesn't allow operators to alter the RTP of games, right?

Quite right Simmo and wouldn't you think that a company like MGS would think ahead and consider how to make some good PR out of this?

 

[Rusty]

OK, I will throw out some standards that I feel top line casinos could and should meet.
Forum members, Reps and CM please either suggest what you think should be added to the list or taken off, giving your perspective.

Apologies for any crossover with current accredited standards

CASHOUTS

max cashout per week should be at least $?????? (Discuss)

All Progressive Jackpots should be paid in full by ?Days (Discuss)

There should be at least Neteller or Moneybookers withdrawal options along with cheque and bank transfer.

There should be a max charge of ???(Discuss) for withdrawal that is clearly stated in cashier

Reversible withdrawals allowed? How long? (Discuss)

CUSTOMER SERVICE

There should be a freephone option or live chat along with email.

Response times for the above? (Discuss)

Bonus, WR & T&C's

Should bonus with max cashout rules be allowed? (Casinos take extra percentage from jackpot money not paid out)

Where bonus systems are not automated (not MGS)
the player should have access to current wagering still required

Banned games must be disabled via software

Where cashouts are requested prior to WR being met the funds should be returned to the players account without deductions.

No deposit bonuses may have max cashouts but where the player is requested to make a deposit before they can withdraw winnings, the bonus winnings should be processed immediately the funds are in the players account.

Deposits

?(Discuss) min turnover required on any deposit before cashout allowed. (Used with no deposit bonus trap)

Transparency

Must be independently audited and audit published on site.

Must be regulated by Whitelisted jurisdiction



I am sure I have missed quite a few obvious ones so help me out.


Once we have list of standards and criteria that are acceptable to at least one casino, interested parties and Bryan then we can have the discussion about what system will best serve players/members, Casinos and CM(Bryan) that wish to achieve these standards.

 

[jetset]

If we're talking a superior level of accreditation I think it is not unreasonable to require the absence of the dreaded FU clause (although I'm not sure the lawyers would be happy about that!)

Neteller-Moneybookers may be a problem for operators in the US?

A casino at this level should never be found wanting in regard to fast responses to players, and I think a 'super-accreditation' should also require a dispute channel that is easily accessed and promptly answered.

White listed jurisdictions may be too narrow a qualification, bearing in mind that we have national jurisdictions like France, Denmark and Italy - and probably others to follow in Europe - starting to open up online gambling along with the already white-listed UK, Gibraltar, Malta (god help us) Alderney, Isle of Man and Antigua. These national bodies are in general respectable bodies with genuine regulations that protect the player. In any event the white-listing strategy is based on permission to advertise in the UK market, so perhaps a better criteria would be an agreed 'acceptable licensing jurisdiction.'

What constitutes acceptable auditing and who provides it would have to be something agreed by interested parties, I think.

Other than that, I think Rusty's list is a pretty good start.

 

[Rusty]

If we're talking a superior level of accreditation I think it is not unreasonable to require the absence of the dreaded FU clause (although I'm not sure the lawyers would be happy about that!)

Neteller-Moneybookers may be a problem for operators in the US?

A casino at this level should never be found wanting in regard to fast responses to players, and I think a 'super-accreditation' should also require a dispute channel that is easily accessed and promptly answered.

White listed jurisdictions may be too narrow a qualification, bearing in mind that we have national jurisdictions like France, Denmark and Italy - and probably others to follow in Europe - starting to open up online gambling along with the already white-listed UK, Gibraltar, Malta (god help us) Alderney, Isle of Man and Antigua. These national bodies are in general respectable bodies with genuine regulations that protect the player. In any event the white-listing strategy is based on permission to advertise in the UK market, so perhaps a better criteria would be an agreed 'acceptable licensing jurisdiction.'

What constitutes acceptable auditing and who provides it would have to be something agreed by interested parties, I think.

Other than that, I think Rusty's list is a pretty good start.

Sure any list of respected license authorities.
I think we can pretty much leave that one up to Bryan as he seems to of the same mind.

As for flagship or super-accreditation then perhaps that should be the empty category with players wishes there for Casinos to aspire to while the more basic standards that are not open to subjectiveness could be added to the accredited standards.
We will need Bryan's input on that.

I know I did not nail all the standards and criteria in my post so come on guys keep chipping in with your thoughts.

Also would patH like to comment on the list thus far or have any further thoughts?
Where are all the other Reps, or is it only 32Red that are interested in giving their players a better experience?

 

[rouletteguy]

Seems like too many changes IMO I think it needs to be summarized and simplified and players need to take responsibility as well,

So how about rather than ask casino's to implement 10 changes all centering around bonus issues we ask them to make 1 change, A T/C page pop up that can only be closed by scrolling to the bottom of the window and clicking an "I agree" button at the bottom WITHIN the document. It would appear every time you clicked on a bonus icon or a new player sign up.

Seems to me it's doable and not an over burden that will just be ignored.

Also seems to me if a casino were unwilling it would strongly imply they wanted the T/C to be ignored in order to take advantage of trusting newbies.
that could be construed as a roguish tactic.

 

[jetset]

I think another requirement could be a responsible gambling page on the casino site (prompted by eu low_roller's recent thread which reminded us all of the dangers of problem gambling and the obligations of operators to combat same.)

 

[winbig]

How about this one -

When a player asks to be REMOVED from getting emails from a casino, they actually COMPLY with the request?

I can't count how many times I've asked to be removed from receiving email from LAUREN @ CWC, but it still keeps coming in.

I've tried the unsub link as well as emailing support@, but both are ignored completely. I've never even received a reply to my emails.

 

[Rusty]

Seems like too many changes IMO I think it needs to be summarized and simplified and players need to take responsibility as well,

So how about rather than ask casino's to implement 10 changes all centering around bonus issues we ask them to make 1 change, A T/C page pop up that can only be closed by scrolling to the bottom of the window and clicking an "I agree" button at the bottom WITHIN the document. It would appear every time you clicked on a bonus icon or a new player sign up.

Seems to me it's doable and not an over burden that will just be ignored.

Also seems to me if a casino were unwilling it would strongly imply they wanted the T/C to be ignored in order to take advantage of trusting newbies.
that could be construed as a roguish tactic.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me though I think there could still be some guidance as to what is acceptable in the T&C's to compliment such a system.

How about this one -

When a player asks to be REMOVED from getting emails from a casino, they actually COMPLY with the request?

I can't count how many times I've asked to be removed from receiving email from LAUREN @ CWC, but it still keeps coming in.

I've tried the unsub link as well as emailing support@, but both are ignored completely. I've never even received a reply to my emails.

That's a good idea. The less spam in my world the better.

I'm very disappointed that no Reps have commented on the current suggestions and given their perspective. (Other than patH who unfortunately has not been back since)

There must lots of other forum members here with good ideas as well that have not seen fit to get involved.