Casino standards

[Rusty]

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)

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)

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]

This would be an easy section to keep tabs of, as it would be empty

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[felicie]

In a perfect world maybe but would it really be any fun?

 

[skiny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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

 

[The Dude]

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

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:
https://www.casinomeister.com/accredited-casinos/

 

[love2winalot]

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.

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]

@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.

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:
https://www.casinomeister.com/accredited-casinos/

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.

 

[Rusty]

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.

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]

Max misunderstood the OP and went off on a tangent largely unrelated to the topic at hand:

Spoiler

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[maxd]

... But I think that a debate on standards for listed casinos is more effective in public.

[strike]Quite so, it wasn't clear to me that the "in the open" proposal was intended for a standards debate only. It sounded like a much more sweeping statement than that.[/strike]

Scratch that, my goof. Have made a note on my original post.

 

[Rusty]

[strike]Quite so, it wasn't clear to me that the "in the open" proposal was intended for a standards debate only. It sounded like a much more sweeping statement than that.[/strike]

Scratch that, my goof. Have made a note on my original post.

Indeed I was specifically suggesting on open discussion on standards not on complaints which I agree should be handled only between parties directly involved in the arbitration process until such time a conclusion is reached.
At that point I believe it healthy for the forum to discuss that conclusion while understanding there are likely to be certain limitations on information.

I take on board your point that some operators are more proactive and open to improved standards than others - lets give them a platform to stand on where they can wave their flag.

 

[maxd]

Indeed I was specifically suggesting on open discussion on standards not on complaints ....

Cool, I get that now. My bad.

... some operators are more proactive and open to improved standards than others ....

In fairness to the operators sometimes it's not just a matter of being proactive, sometimes it's simply an economy of scale thing: the big boys can afford a little 'largess', the smaller shops maybe not so much. That said giving superior Customer Service often pays back a lot more than it costs, eventually.

 

[hitobito2005]

I think some of the casinos using Wagerworks software are good candidates.

The two poins that 32red fail on:

Theoretical RTP of each game listed in paytable
All games excluded from play must be locked out via the casino software.

In Wagerworks software the RTP is included in the "paytable" section of each game, and i've noticed on the Getminted site recently they have put this info in plain sight next to the play button for every game.

The second point isn't strictly possible with wagerworks, but the bonuses are credited after the wagering has been done so you can play all games and only allowed ones will count. This way you never have any problems with disallowed winnings etc.

Another point is that many Wagerworks casinos pay within a matter of hours.

 

[Rusty]

Cool, I get that now. My bad.



In fairness to the operators sometimes in not just a matter of being proactive, it's sometimes simply an economy of scale: the big boys can afford a little 'largess', the smaller shops maybe not so much. That said giving superior Customer Service often pays back a lot more than it costs, eventually.

Yes it is important that criteria are not so expensive to implement yet on the other hand as you point out, cutting corners can be false economy.
That would all be addressed in a detailed discussion and why we need the Reps perspective.

Customer service is very subjective so again any standards applied to that would need to deal only with availability and responsiveness.
For example freephone or live chat should be available and where not email should receive a response within 1 hour.
Flagship standards that "price out" smaller operations would not be an option but then again they shouldn't pander to cut cost Mickey mouse operations either.

Remember a new set of standards would be there to aspire to (see it as a ,"Beyond the call of duty", section) - nobody in the accredited section or otherwise needs to lift a finger to get in there if they don't see fit. It could theoretically remain forever empty but even a cynic like me does not believe that would be the case - if I did I would not of started this thread.

 

[maxd]

Ok, I've pretty much stuck my foot in it now.

Assuming the goal is still as originally specified -- "A new tier to above the accredited casino that includes and adds to those standards" -- the question seems to me to be "why not just expand the Accred criteria?" Display all the criteria on an Accred chart so it's easy enough to see who does what. Easy to see, easy to use, hopefully easy to do.

I'm basically working from the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" point of view. As far as I know the Accred system ain't broke.

Also there's the overhead issue: twice as many categories usually means four times as much work. My guess is that BB doesn't have enough time in the day as it is.

 

[funeral979]

I think Rusty's idea is a good one, and I see where he is coming from....if a little impractical.

This is just my personal opinion but, it seems that alot of the accredited casinos get 'lazy'.....they figure since they have reached acredited status that they no longer need to make any effort to improve themselves. Since they have attained this title, why bother trying so hard anymore? Now I am not saying this is the case with all, or even a mojority of them BUT.....

Lets get realistic here. There is a HUGE gap in the quality/CS/standards of some of the 'top' accredited casinos vs. some of the ones that are barely meeting the minimums. A few come to mind but I don't really want to name names.

Maybe a more realistic idea is to review accredited casinos more often, maybe quarterly, and see where they have slacked off or could make some improvements....maybe add a section where players could voice their feedback?

 

[vinylweatherman]

I think some of the casinos using Wagerworks software are good candidates.

The two poins that 32red fail on:



In Wagerworks software the RTP is included in the "paytable" section of each game, and i've noticed on the Getminted site recently they have put this info in plain sight next to the play button for every game.

The second point isn't strictly possible with wagerworks, but the bonuses are credited after the wagering has been done so you can play all games and only allowed ones will count. This way you never have any problems with disallowed winnings etc.

Another point is that many Wagerworks casinos pay within a matter of hours.

With regard to some points, we have to see if it is a case of "can't do it" or "won't do it".

In many cases, the software supports player friendly functions, but some casinos deliberately refuse to use them. The Virtual group go out of their way to cripple RTG so that players are completely dependent on CS to tell them whether the WR has been met, and this has been abused by the casinos because the player cannot double check in the cashier.
Where they could, it was found that the RTG calculator was wildly out, and players were being cheated if they relied on the counter, rather than checking whether it was counting down correctly.

Microgaming have insulted many players by saying that the RTP would "confuse" us, which is why they don't bother providing it. On the other hand, they don't just not provide it, they go to great lengths to keep it secret, even though it turns out they had little hidden that could not be worked out by a few dedicated sleuths, who gathered the reel strips, and thus calculated the theoretical RTP for many MGS slots, showing that in general the 95% level was pretty close to the truth.


Although there is no flagship section, we DO have the annual casino awards, where a few casinos who have gone that extra mile get their moment of fame. The latest awards page could be considered a list of that year's "flagship" casinos, and a good guide for the best of the crop in the current year. The awards also show the worst of the non-accredited and rogue casinos.

The awards have been dominated by 32Red, and if there were a flagship section, 32Red would probably be the first member. 32Red, for example, do NOT have a "reverse period" as such. They set a notional default of 6 hours, less time than most people sleep at night, so effectively payment is the next day. They can cut this to 1 hour on request, which seems to be the minimum parameter the software accepts. This effectively means payment in the next batch.

Ladbrokes pay even faster than 32Red to Neteller, but on the other hand, Ladbrokes have more or less excluded Neteller players from any of the promotions, and payouts from the permitted (for promotions) deposit methods are a good deal slower (cheque or card refund).

32Red could probably improve a bit more, but this would have to be in conjunction with MGS, since MGS would have to build in some functions, such as blocking excluded games from play with a bonus, so players could NEVER breach the bonus terms.

 

[Rusty]

Ok, I've pretty much stuck my foot in it now.

Assuming the goal is still as originally specified -- "A new tier to above the accredited casino that includes and adds to those standards" -- the question seems to me to be "why not just expand the Accred criteria?" Display all the criteria on an Accred chart so it's easy enough to see who does what. Easy to see, easy to use, hopefully easy to do.

I'm basically working from the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" point of view. As far as I know the Accred system ain't broke.

Also there's the overhead issue: twice as many categories usually means four times as much work. My guess is that BB doesn't have enough time in the day as it is.

I have explained this previously as skinny suggested something similar.

As you say there is no need to tinker with the accredited list.

There is absolutely no reason why an extra tier would provide any more work than adding those criteria to the existing accredited list.
If you added them to the existing accredited list then all those Casinos are going to either have to immediately meet these criteria or be relegated from the list or we have an accredited list that allows for Casinos to pick and choose what standards they want to implement and that is not a viable system IMO.
It would also be difficult for players to make sense of as well with so many criteria and check boxes involved.
If Bryan thought this was ever a good idea he would of implemented it in the original accredited list but I can see why he elected not to.

The value of a another tier over just adding criteria to the existing accredited list is firstly its simplicity in that like the accredited list the extra standards/criteria required can be lumped together and then the player can quickly reference what casinos belong in this tier.

Secondly it is set apart and distinct from the accredited list.
This gives it added value to Casinos that make the grade - a tick in a checkbox amongst many ticks in many checkboxes just isn't going to provide them with the incentive to meet the extra criteria.

Thirdly it encourages the rest of the pack to raise its game - we are simply finding a way to increase competition to improve standards.
As I have previously remarked and as funeral recently points out, basically that competition just does not exist if standards remain the same.

Let's be frank and open here and view this as realistically as possible from each perspective.

From Bryan's perspective higher/additional standards are a good thing because as standards are elevated so is Casinomeisters legitimacy and the value of listed casinos. (I am not suggesting there is any problem with credibility here just that there is always room to elevate your status in this industry and that can increase revenue) That is the point of having these lists otherwise only the rogue pit need exist.
There would be no lost value to him from accredited casinos by having another tier because if any loss of revenue would be going to the flagship casinos so the sum would stay the same except for any increase from new players.

The Casinos perspective will depend on how much they care about improved standards.
If they don't care and want to maintain the status quo then they will remain in the accredited list - not a bad place to be I am sure you will agree.
If they see some of their players heading toward a new flagship casino then they have the option to raise their game and not get left behind.
If not then at least they will benefit from an overall perception in raised standards and possibly make up any shortfall.
Importantly the choice is theirs.

Casinos that want to be let off the leash and show how much better they are than other casinos they currently stand shoulder to shoulder with would welcome such a system I am sure and no doubt they would benefit from it and quite rightly so.

(Some standards such as theoretical RTP of a slot in paytable would automatically be met casinos using the same software but in the accredited section)

The players perspective is also pretty obvious and as the poll shows would only be degrees of positive. the benefits are obvious.

Think about why this site is successful and the principle on which it works and I think you will see how it could be a positive thing for everybody.
Bryan is obviously a talented business man and skilled diplomat to achieve what he has and I have no doubt with your help as a negotiator this could be a painless and positive way to raise the bar.

 

[Tengil]

32Red could probably improve a bit more, but this would have to be in conjunction with MGS, since MGS would have to build in some functions, such as blocking excluded games from play with a bonus, so players could NEVER breach the bonus terms.

Casinos wouldnt probably use it if its not forced on them. MG has a built in "betsize capper" that can be used during bonusplay. And basically no casino uses it.

Again at WW you cant break any betsize rules because they dont have any.

 

[Rusty]

With regard to some points, we have to see if it is a case of "can't do it" or "won't do it".

In many cases, the software supports player friendly functions, but some casinos deliberately refuse to use them. The Virtual group go out of their way to cripple RTG so that players are completely dependent on CS to tell them whether the WR has been met, and this has been abused by the casinos because the player cannot double check in the cashier.
Where they could, it was found that the RTG calculator was wildly out, and players were being cheated if they relied on the counter, rather than checking whether it was counting down correctly.

Microgaming have insulted many players by saying that the RTP would "confuse" us, which is why they don't bother providing it. On the other hand, they don't just not provide it, they go to great lengths to keep it secret, even though it turns out they had little hidden that could not be worked out by a few dedicated sleuths, who gathered the reel strips, and thus calculated the theoretical RTP for many MGS slots, showing that in general the 95% level was pretty close to the truth.


Although there is no flagship section, we DO have the annual casino awards, where a few casinos who have gone that extra mile get their moment of fame. The latest awards page could be considered a list of that year's "flagship" casinos, and a good guide for the best of the crop in the current year. The awards also show the worst of the non-accredited and rogue casinos.

The awards have been dominated by 32Red, and if there were a flagship section, 32Red would probably be the first member. 32Red, for example, do NOT have a "reverse period" as such. They set a notional default of 6 hours, less time than most people sleep at night, so effectively payment is the next day. They can cut this to 1 hour on request, which seems to be the minimum parameter the software accepts. This effectively means payment in the next batch.

Ladbrokes pay even faster than 32Red to Neteller, but on the other hand, Ladbrokes have more or less excluded Neteller players from any of the promotions, and payouts from the permitted (for promotions) deposit methods are a good deal slower (cheque or card refund).

32Red could probably improve a bit more, but this would have to be in conjunction with MGS, since MGS would have to build in some functions, such as blocking excluded games from play with a bonus, so players could NEVER breach the bonus terms.

The annual Casino awards could still exist in their current guise and they are great but I don't think they are in any way a substitute for a flagship section.
Firstly there no parameters to be met.
Secondly they are informative of past performance but not current or likely future performance.
Thirdly they are not primarily concerned with operating standards.

Standards that required implementation through the software would certainly be the toughest to accomplish a consensus on.
MGS and RTG obviously under no pressure whatsoever from operators to meet these requirements despite repeated promises in this forum from Reps that they will get right on it.

 

[The Dude]

FTR - I'm willing to "tinker" with the standards if it means making the list more substantial. Last year a number of new standards were introduced, and I'm sure there's room for a few more.

Or as implied earlier, adding categories to the listings (white listed, max payouts, etc.). It can be a combination of both - it's a matter of bringing in and implementing your comments and suggestions.

 

[jod5413]

While I am in awe of Rusty's thoughts and some of the other posters in this thread, I am having feelings of deja vu.

In a perfect on line casino world, the players, casino reps/owners, webmasters and affiliates would all work together to better the industry. This is not a new concept.

If people weren't involved, it would work great! Unfortunately, every one will never be on the same page, that is human nature. I do believe there are probably some additions to Bryan's accredited list that might be helpful. But, I do not ever see this becoming the be all end all but rather a minor improvement to the accredited list.

JMO

 

[jetset]

@Rusty - I get that you are not talking about a single flagship casino...perhaps I did not word my post sufficiently clearly on this.

Back on topic:

Perhaps an indicator of how interested individual operators are in this subject will be how many come forward to join the debate

I agree that a public debate is a good idea, and I would hope that the reps here see that and participate.

Have to agree with Max when he says there are many examples of casinos that have shown they are prepared to go the extra mile in improving their operational capabilities.

Just a footnote here; I doubt that any conversation on this subject will be fully productive if members use it to slam casinos/operators or settle old scores. The way to go here imo is a rational and practical discussion on whether this is a good idea and how it could best be achieved if it is thought practical.

 

[jetset]

Another thought - would an agreed points system work? It could be used as an incentive for a higher accreditation, depending on agreed attributes.

 

[Rusty]

@Rusty - I get that you are not talking about a single flagship casino...perhaps I did not word my post sufficiently clearly on this.

Back on topic:

Perhaps an indicator of how interested individual operators are in this subject will be how many come forward to join the debate

I agree that a public debate is a good idea, and I would hope that the reps here see that and participate.

Have to agree with Max when he says there are many examples of casinos that have shown they are prepared to go the extra mile in improving their operational capabilities.

Just a footnote here; I doubt that any conversation on this subject will be fully productive if members use it to slam casinos/operators or settle old scores. The way to go here imo is a rational and practical discussion on whether this is a good idea and how it could best be achieved if it is thought practical.

Absolutely, this should be a zero tolerance thread in that regard.
We just need to make the distinction between valid criticism used to illustrate a point which is constructive or ill conceived comments and outright attacks which are to the detriment of what we want to achieve.

As I say, regarding Casinos that are looking to improve their operational capabilities and want to be seen as industry leaders when it comes to standards, what better way than to give them a window to themselves where these values are clearly advertised and players can see who they are at a glance?

Reps are very welcome to add comments. In fact I urge them to.

 

[Rusty]

Another thought - would an agreed points system work? It could be used as an incentive for a higher accreditation, depending on agreed attributes.

I thought about a points system because at face value it seems like a very good idea, a sort of league table which would provide both the incentive for Casinos to improve and the clarity of their credentials to players.
The problem is implementation.
There are many different criteria and each is not necessarily as important as the next so we would also have to evaluate how many points each criteria was worth.
That would be very hard to find consensus on and since the table would need to be updated every month, every quarter at worse, it would require an awful lot of work for Bryan.

 

[Rusty]

While I am in awe of Rusty's thoughts and some of the other posters in this thread, I am having feelings of deja vu.

In a perfect on line casino world, the players, casino reps/owners, webmasters and affiliates would all work together to better the industry. This is not a new concept.

If people weren't involved, it would work great! Unfortunately, every one will never be on the same page, that is human nature. I do believe there are probably some additions to Bryan's accredited list that might be helpful. But, I do not ever see this becoming the be all end all but rather a minor improvement to the accredited list.

JMO

You are right of course but any improvement is welcome so it is worthwhile - I am actually a little more optimistic than that and see it as an ongoing process because it can be beneficial to all who take part.

Of course people will never reach consensus but they don't have to. We only need to reach broad agreement and compromise where necessary.

 

[Rusty]

FTR - I'm willing to "tinker" with the standards if it means making the list more substantial. Last year a number of new standards were introduced, and I'm sure there's room for a few more.

Or as implied earlier, adding categories to the listings (white listed, max payouts, etc.). It can be a combination of both - it's a matter of bringing in and implementing your comments and suggestions.

OK, but I'm not sure you are seeing my vision or at least if you are you have your reservations. (which is fine but what are they?)

If you talking about maintaining the accredited list only and adding extra optional criteria I have explained why I don't think this is such a good idea.
If you disagree with that conclusion then we can discuss why.

If you are talking about maintaining the accredited list only and adding extra compulsory criteria that would be better than the first option but surely that would cause you more problems than option three?
Firstly you are going to have at least a few casinos currently on the list kicking and screaming and doing all they can to block added criteria other casinos may agree with. (in other words we are likely to end up with a watered down version that suits all those currently listed)
Alternatively if worse came to worse and it probably would if the new criteria were worth a damn you would lose a few casinos from your current list.

The third option, the one I consider the best for attaining improved standards is to make a new category (The rogue pit is multilevelled after all)
which has the added criteria we discuss here and are considered both achievable and important. Somewhat paradoxically the beauty of it is that it is not compulsory for any casino to achieve these standards unless it wants to be in this list (wants to set itself apart)
Other casinos can continue without feeling their current status is being threatened.
I have gone into some detail about the balance of this carrot and stick scenario in previous posts.
From financial stand point it should not require any renegotiation on your part either.

There is perhaps a fourth option which could be a mix of the ingredients of option 2 and option 3. Not sure how that cake would rise though.

I acknowledge I can't possibly know all the possible objections from all sides and I welcome all critical objective views but I have at least considered any financial impact on such changes and I only see a possible net benefit gain, I can not see how it would result in loss of revenue.
Admittedly it is a simplistic model but one that you built CM around.
Casinos need players and CM needs members, the bigger and better CM appears to the player the more they will come here for news, the more they come here for news the more they will play at the accredited casinos and hopefully support CM when doing so.
Or am just getting all:clap::yahoo::clap:

 

[maxd]

There is absolutely no reason why an extra tier would provide any more work than adding those criteria to the existing accredited list.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As one who's spent the last decade managing things on the web related to casinos I have no doubt that more categories would equal more work. That's just the way those things go.

Maybe once it was set up and running blah blah blah it might not be a ton of extra effort, and then again it might. All maybes, who needs more work?

It would also be difficult for players to make sense of as well with so many criteria and check boxes involved.

Come now: look at chart, decide what's important to you, who has it?, job done. Every publication in the world uses a similar format when presenting a mass of related data to the prospective buyer/user/whatever. I have serious doubts that casino goers are any less capable of doing so.

If Bryan thought this was ever a good idea he would of implemented it in the original accredited list ....

As you've seen since, Bryan is considering additional criteria himself (as you quoted above).

And I'm sure that we both know these things evolve over time. Look at the Rogue list for example, ever-evolving as Bryan tweaks it for a variety of reasons. I don't recall what the original Rogue list looked like but I'll bet there has been some substantial revisions over the years.

I understand what you are driving at and admire your energy in doing so but don't get caught in the trap of defending your idea at any cost. I think it's clear there have been some serious and reasonable counter-proposals offered here: dismissing them out of hand or through twisted logic is not going to make your case any stronger.

If you talking about maintaining the accredited list only and adding extra optional criteria I have explained why I don't think this is such a good idea.

Thread is getting long, can you point to where you've covered this?

 

[Rusty]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. As one who's spent the last decade managing things on the web related to casinos I have no doubt that more categories would equal more work. That's just the way those things go.

Maybe once it was set up and running blah blah blah it might not be a ton of extra effort, and then again it might. All maybes, who needs more work?

No, you are the one with the maybes that you are pulling out of thin air.
Setting up a new section with specific criteria to enter requires little work. All that needs happen is Casinos that meet these criteria get added to it.
Adding extra criteria to the existing list would almost certainly require more work because you need to set up a system where each casino is evaluated individually on each criteria. Not rocket science is it?
Why don't you add some actualities or substance to back your claims it is more work?

Come now: look at chart, decide what's important to you, who has it?, job done. Every publication in the world uses a similar format when presenting a mass of related data to the prospective buyer/user/whatever. I have serious doubts that casino goers are any less capable of doing so.

Fine if you are shopping for a product, not so great if you want to compare Casino standards at a glance.
For your statement to be a worthwhile argument against a separate list it would have show it is easier for players to see, who has and who has not adopted a set of additional standards from a long list of casinos with a series checkboxes in no particular order - unless you are going to rate each criteria and make it a league table (this would be the extra work you are so afraid of) rather than having a category that simply lists the casinos that have adopted these new standards.
Is that making sense to you?

As you've seen since, Bryan is considering additional criteria himself (as you quoted above).

And I'm sure that we both know these things evolve over time. Look at the Rogue list for example, ever-evolving as Bryan tweaks it for a variety of reasons. I don't recall what the original Rogue list looked like but I'll bet there has been some substantial revisions over the years.

That is what we are talking about, evolution.What's your point?

I understand what you are driving at and admire your energy in doing so but don't get caught in the trap of defending your idea at any cost. I think it's clear there have been some serious and reasonable counter-proposals offered here: dismissing them out of hand or through twisted logic is not going to make your case any stronger.

Can you point to anywhere I have dismissed anything out of hand or is that just you projecting your opinion as fact?
I have not defended anything either, perhaps I am just not aware I am under attack?
All I have done is put forward reasons I consider the idea to be a good one and its advantages over other ideas
Where alternative suggestions have been made I have looked at them objectively and put forward my conclusions.
Take my last post to Bryan for example.
I am still not aware there has been a single specific reason given that shows me how giving casinos a menu of standards to choose from yet all belong in the same category is better than setting up a new category for casinos to aspire to.
I have gone into great detail as to how this system has advantages over the system you are advocating and repeated them at various times throughout this thread. Unfortunately you do not make an alternative argument for your system.
In short I have not seen these reasonable counter proposals you talk of and claim I have dismissed out of hand.
As for any twisted logic - it is not coming from this side of the discussion.
Again perhaps you should give an example to back up such a statement as pulling these opinions from thin air and putting them forward as fact is really not helpful.


Thread is getting long, can you point to where you've covered this?

There are only 4 pages Max and I have covered it in several posts including on this page. I appreciate you must be busy but so am I.
OK, so now there are 5 pages and it is covered in the previous page.


From my point of view you appear to be the one pushing for a set agenda.
All your comments so far from start to finish have given me nothing other than that impression.
The way you waded in right from the start may have been your mistake which you apologised for but it may say a lot about your negative mindset when you entered this thread.

I am not so attached to my proposal (It is not my case as you so ineloquently put it - as if to imply I am defending something and that something benefits me) that I am not open to alternative suggestions.
Far from dismissing anything out of hand I have discussed everything in the most objective way possible - pointing out the pros and cons as I see them.
I don't expect obfuscation in return - I expect counter arguments which is the way forward from here.

Let's concentrate on what each person proposes and the pros and cons of each system. There is no doubt another alternative and this thread is an open discussion on how best to improve standards through a CM list.
No one has a monopoly on ideas.
I am open to all but that does not mean I have to agree with them.

 

[maxd]

I have a different perspective on these things than you. My experience with online casinos is no doubt different than yours. It is from this position that I speak.

If you don't like what I have to say then we disagree, fair enough, but dismissing my efforts here as something I'm "pulling out of thin air", or "projecting your opinion as fact", or accusing me of "obfuscation" seems pretty unnecessary, IMO. I believe my statements here have been no less based on reasonable grounds than yours, or the others, have.

My bottom line is that (a) I see no reason for a second or further tiers especially when a minor modification to the existing system would, it seems to me, accomplish very much the same thing and (b) I see no need to destabilize a system that doesn't need fixing especially when doing so would, IMO, create more work for questionable ends.

Ok, the "more work" thing: more web pages to build and maintain, more time explaining the system to casinos and players, more time dealing with the inevitable "we should be super Accred not vanilla Accred" complaints, etc etc etc. The more rules you add to a system the more effort it takes to maintain that system, often exponentially more effort. The KISS rule is a "rule" for a good reason, because simpler is usually better. (KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid)

Please note that these are my opinions based on my experience. I'm not saying they are gospel and have never presented them as such. I reckon your opinions on the subject differ. Excellent, and there we go.

The way you waded in right from the start may have been your mistake which you apologised for but it may say a lot about your negative mindset when you entered this thread.

That was on a different subject entirely and really has nothing to do with what we are discussing now. Besides, I didn't present a "negative mindset" there I was attempting to explain the benefits of a closed negotiation process which I believe we have since agreed to agree on.

 

[skiny]

Actually Rusty, I think I was the one with the negative mindset. I still have it. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and mine just happens to be different from yours. I don't see how having a higher than accredited, accredited section would really help my gambling experience. If there is anything missing from the accreditation requirements, add it. If there are things that aren't really required but would be nice to have, ask for them and make it known which casinos provide them.

I'm also of the mindset that anything I get no matter where I get it, I'm going to eventually pay for anyway. How many threads are floating around this forum right now eluding to the fact that people seem to be winning less, getting less bonus features, getting stingier bonus offers since casinos lost the US market? Since the economy dropped? Since the last time I had cabbage rolls? I don't know if any of it's true but it seems to be what I'm reading. And if we follow the logic that what we win or what bonuses we are offered is directly related to the profit the casinos are bringing in, anything we harass the casinos into doing that cost them more is eventually going to cost us more. Call me a cynic, call me crazy, but that's just the feeling I get.

 

[KasinoKing]

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

Simmo lists cash-out times at 100s of casinos on his site.
For Playtech, see:

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

[/derail]
KK

 

[Rusty]

I have a different perspective on these things than you. My experience with online casinos is no doubt different than yours. It is from this position that I speak.

If you don't like what I have to say then we disagree, fair enough, but dismissing my efforts here as something I'm "pulling out of thin air", or "projecting your opinion as fact", or accusing me of "obfuscation" seems pretty unnecessary, IMO. I believe my statements here have been no less based on reasonable grounds than yours, or the others, have.

I don't think you have made any effort though Max.
Let me make it clear what you are pulling out of thin air and why consider you efforts prior to this post obfuscation using your own words.
I think it's clear there have been some serious and reasonable counter-proposals offered here: dismissing them out of hand or through twisted logic is not going to make your case any stronger.
I asked you to back that statement up because I have done nothing but ask for other opinions other than my own and have detailed why a consider another tier would better achieve improved standards (That is the goal here right?) You have failed to do so because you pulled it out of thin air(and I'm being polite here)
When I request you address the points I make and explain why your idea will better achieve improved standards your response is this.
Thread is getting long, can you point to where you've covered this?
Seriously?
So you have obviously come to your conclusions of twisted logic and how my idea wont work and yours is better without even reading my arguments.
So when I make clear statements about your probable mindset and how you have added nothing constructive I do so based on your statements alone.

My bottom line is that (a) I see no reason for a second or further tiers especially when a minor modification to the existing system would, it seems to me, accomplish very much the same thing
Right, at least you are explaining where you are coming from if not why though describing it as a bottom line does not give the impression you are open to discussion. That mindset again?
All I ask is that you explain how this will achieve the same thing. To keep this discussion coherent you should specifically address the points I make as to why I consider another tier would achieve this better.
That is how discussion works
and (b) I see no need to destabilize a system that doesn't need fixing especially when doing so would, IMO, create more work for questionable ends.
If nothing needs fixing then why are we here?
Actually my suggestion proposes to leave the accredited list exactly how it is so how is this destabilizing?
How does my suggestion "fix" a system more by leaving it alone than yours that wants to make changes?
Arguments need substance to be sustainable.This is the discussion we should be having.
Ok, the "more work" thing:1 more web pages to build and 2 maintain, more time explaining the system to casinos and players,3 more time dealing with the inevitable "we should be super Accred not vanilla Accred" complaints, etc etc etc. 4The more rules you add to a system the more effort it takes to maintain that system, often exponentially more effort. The KISS rule is a "rule" for a good reason, because simpler is usually better. (KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid)

Max, Trust me, I know a lot about web design and coding.
1 No more pages needed, just add to the existing accredited page. (This is a section with preset criteria, simply a list of casinos that meet these criteria. It will no doubt be a small list and those that are in it will no longer be in the accredited list. They will exist on the same page. The extra space required is basically the heading and padding but you will require as much extra space for your system anyway. Space is not issue surely)
Again there is no more work and I have explained why.
2Maintenance is easier because you are simply listing casinos that meet all criteria rather than constantly checking if casinos meet individual criteria as proposed in your system( Have I explained this already?)
It really does not need explaining to the players or casinos, even a 5 yeard old would get it.
Building it is very,very basic, probably easier than adding voluntary criteria to the existing list.
3The complaints thing form Casinos I get and have addressed previously but here is the deal;
There is only one extra category, no one is forced to make the standard and the standards required to get into the category will be very clear.
There will be no grounds for the hypothetical complaints you describe.
4 There are no more rules. Make the grade your in. That is a lot less complicated than making lots of new criteria that will or will not me met yet having all these casinos given the same level of approval. Accredited.
It seems to me the system I propose is simpler and I explain why.
More KIS me baby than KIS my ass.


Please note that these are my opinions based on my experience. I'm not saying they are gospel and have never presented them as such. I reckon your opinions on the subject differ. Excellent, and there we go.

Great, all opinions are welcome as long as they are pertinent to the discussion including mine I hope.
Don't mistake me arguing what I see as valid points as a refusal to see another point of view.
As I say no one has a monopoly on ideas and that is what this thread is about. Inviting open discussion.
Lets keep at it but stick to the actualities of what is being proposed and the pros and cons.

That was on a different subject entirely and really has nothing to do with what we are discussing now. Besides, I didn't present a "negative mindset" there I was attempting to explain the benefits of a closed negotiation process which I believe we have since agreed to agree on.
But that is exactly my point.
If you fail to read something or can't be bothered and yet still give an opinion that opinion must be based on a preconception. If the opinion is negative then the preconception must be negative. You did a similar thing in a later response.
I understand these topics and threads are time consuming and to be frank not very glamorous but while we need as many opinions as possible it is important those that make these opinions understand what has been discussed so far and the context of that discussion.

It would be nice if a Rep from one of the aspiring casinos that Max talks of saw fit to grace us with an opinion.
Indeed any Rep since this relates to and reflects on your Casinos.

 

[Rusty]

Actually Rusty, I think I was the one with the negative mindset. I still have it. Everyone is welcome to their opinion and mine just happens to be different from yours. I don't see how having a higher than accredited, accredited section would really help my gambling experience. If there is anything missing from the accreditation requirements, add it. If there are things that aren't really required but would be nice to have, ask for them and make it known which casinos provide them.

I think it would help your gambling experience by better raising standards and making it clear which casinos aspire to those standards.
I have detailed the how and why in previous posts so if you disagree with that assessment then that would be a good place to expand this argument which is basically at the centre of the whole, extra list, debate.
If you can point out how my premise is wrong then I will be better able to see your argument that it wont improve your gambling experience.
Again I have previously explained why I do not see adding optional criteria to the existing accredited section preferable to what I propose. (Basically what will happen is a watered down list of standards that may or may not be adopted - this weakens the existing list rather than strengthens it IMO)
The same thing though if you have specific counter argument to that reasoning and how that system will work better than the one I propose read my arguments and address them directly so I can pin down exactly what it is you are disagreeing with.

I'm also of the mindset that anything I get no matter where I get it, I'm going to eventually pay for anyway. How many threads are floating around this forum right now eluding to the fact that people seem to be winning less, getting less bonus features, getting stingier bonus offers since casinos lost the US market? Since the economy dropped? Since the last time I had cabbage rolls? I don't know if any of it's true but it seems to be what I'm reading. And if we follow the logic that what we win or what bonuses we are offered is directly related to the profit the casinos are bringing in, anything we harass the casinos into doing that cost them more is eventually going to cost us more. Call me a cynic, call me crazy, but that's just the feeling I get.

That is definitely an extra dimension worth considering but however any new criteria are incorporated into Casinomeister whether that be system A or system B will cost the same for the casinos and the idea, as previously discussed, is to only add criteria that are affordable.
I really don't think the player will see any negative effect to his/her bottom line and the reverse logic of what you say is that rogue casinos offer better value to the player because they are the least regulated.

I don't consider you have a negative mindset Skinny, you just disagree and are stating why.
I wish more forum members would get involved as you have.

 

[maxd]

Rusty, I've given you my thoughts on the issues and that has obviously created problems, apparently personal. I'm happy to discuss this further with you but out of respect to the other readers I suggest we do it via PM. If that produces anything useful we could of course bring that back here and add it to the mix.

 

[Rusty]

Rusty, I've given you my thoughts on the issues and that has obviously created problems, apparently personal. I'm happy to discuss this further with you but out of respect to the other readers I suggest we do it via PM. If that produces anything useful we could of course bring that back here and add it to the mix.

Agreed. Although when debating personal opinions this is always going to happen. (It is personal)
This is why it is best to stick to the specifics of what has been suggested rather than making generalisations.
We need to concentrate on the substance of each others arguments and if PM helps do this I am for it.

Overview.
We are currently debating how best to implement a system that incorporates new standards and best encourages Casinos to pursue and adopt these standards.
We are also considering the practicality of such a system.

Currently it appears we have different positions on both these points.

I believe I have made strong arguments as to why an extra tier is preferable and as yet I simply do not see your counterpoints as valid and I have gone into detail as to why not.
I am not against the suggestion of adding voluntary criteria to the accredited list but I think it is the weaker of the two systems we are discussing. Again I have gone into detail as to why.
I stated earlier it is impossible to have a clear perspective on this from all sides so there may well be arguments I am not yet aware of that would change my mind.

If you could PM me and state what you see wrong with the specifics (point by point) of what I suggest or the logic I have pursued then that may be helpful but I need details and not generalisations so I can gauge the merit of the argument.
I just can't value statements such as "more work" unless it comes with an explanation as to why and at the same time negates my points that an extra tier is not more work - in fact it may well be less.
There is nothing recalcitrant about that and of course I will point that out when you attempt to imply that there is.
I will always take each post at face value and argue it on merit.

Look forward to your PM.

 

[nisosbar]

If there is going to be a primary CM-endorsed casino, let me make a suggestion:

I would really love having a client-level customizable max bet, so that, say you bet 1/100 of your deposit; if you deposit, for example, $300 prior to starting a session, you can set a max bet for all games, client-wide, at $3 (other than games which don't meet your max bet, for example, in RTG with Happy Golden Ox, I think there is a fixed bet of $1, so if your max bet is over $1, hitting max bet on Happy Golden Ox would never go above that).

 

[PaaskeDenmark]

Simmo lists cash-out times at 100s of casinos on his site.
For Playtech, see:

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

[/derail]
KK

Thats pure brilliance Thanks!!!