sirius said:
My main question was about the new odds on sites although I did ramble on a bit. When I said I didn't think you should add so many so quickly in the accredited section (or words to that effect) I didn't mean to tell you how to run the site but that it seems some of them are a probably not that worthy. I was also just pointing out some possible errors I noticed.
Thanks for the concern, and don't get me wrong - I always appreciate it when people point out where I may have overlooked something, or if I'm not clear enough in what I'm doing.
It may have seen like suddenly a lot of new casinos were added to the "Accredited Section" but in reality it's only a handful of operations. Since November 2004, I've taken on six new clients. That's minuscule compared to how many operators are wanting to get on board. All six of these clients I have known in one way or another for quite a while. Each one of these guys know that they make a commitment when I take them on.
If there has been issues in the past, then I need to make them aware of this. And this needs to be issues that are not merely anonymous forum postings. These need to be real tangible issues that beg for a resolution/solution.
sirius said:
I am also feeling uneasy lately at things here in more ways than one because I've noticed in some threads you've commented on my site before without making it obvious. Can you forget about my site as I was here well before I even had a site (which I only started as a hobby and not a business) and it's not relevant to what I'm saying.
I only make comment when other webmasters such as yourself come here and publicly challenge what goes on. To be frank, it's not an appropriate thing to do. You don't see me posting at WOL asking what's up with them advertising xyz casino. You don't see Max over here wondering what's up with Fortune Lounge. And you don't see John Abbott from Gone Gambling making the rounds challenging whomever is advertising for whatever. If I have a question on any of these portals' policies, I'll email them.
sirius said:
...I was also pointing out that there are very few new operators who choose oddson and we all know what happened to the last one a couple of years ago.
Operators choose software providers for a number of reasons. Oddson casinos aren't as costly as some of their competitors. Most new operators lean toward Playtech unless they have mega bucks, then they go toward MG.
sirius said:
...Yes, I have attended gaming conferences but not for the reason you go there as I think it could cause some problems taking a balanced view. .
So you're stating I have an "imbalanced" view? I attend these conferences to gather information, to report on my findings, and to meet operators that either want to commit themselves to come on board, or to solve player problems. It's costly, it's time consuming, and it's thankless in most cases. And I spend too much time away from my family attending these things. I think I have a very balanced viewpoint.
sirius said:
Early on, Casinomeister was recommending Handa Lopez casinos that cheated (Grand Dominican and others who claimed to be great casinos). You can't always believe what these casino employees tell you.
Yeah, back in 1998-99 before anyone new they cheated. This site was in an embryonic stage back then (like every portal).
Everyone was flying by the seat of their pants. To imply that I was being an a-hole webmaster is a bit out of line.
sirius said:
Casino4Aces is definitely a rogue operation despite you knowing the owners. They have the same registrant address, same servers and same affiliate program as casinobar. The affiliate program is at
www.winneraffiliates.com and only features casinoonair, casinobar and casino4aces. Winner is the newest name for them, it seems..
Casino4Aces was originally rogued for effed up customer service, but I know they were sold to someone else with a different staff. If they are still using the old casino-on-air software, then they go back into the rogue pit. I have no problems with that.
sirius said:
Main Street Group hasn't fully resolved its problems from years ago but may still have problems now. The person posting about slots.com had a worrying problem which your response didn't acknowledge at all. This sort of issue isn't one that should be swept under the carpet as it represents fraudulant behaviour by the casino if the poster was telling the truth. I'm sure you understand the seriousness of it despite your response to him.
I haven't had the time to fully look into the Slots.com situation yet. I've been more or less away from full work days for over a week and I have a lot of shit to do. If there are problems with the Main Street Group, then this is the time to bring it on. They have been listed at a couple of other popular sites for months, and virtually no one has had any problem with them past or present. Then this is the time to bring them on (like I mentioned above).
sirius said:
VIPCasinos had a slightly dodgy past and I have refused advertising from them when a casino in the group wanted to advertise on my site about a year ago. They didn't really try very hard to look into these past problems with casinos (Goodasgold casino in particular wouldn't pay someone for 'irregular betting')! They were involved in a strange 'reverse' acquisition a few months back (Leisure and Gaming were reported to have bought VIP Management) but the same people are still there including Alistair Assheton who was the Managing Director before I think..
I think that most everyone would agree that Alistair Assheton is an upstanding operator. There were a couple of issues a year or so ago that were resolved. What's the problem?
Again, if there is anything unresolved or lingering, there shouldn't be a problem looking at this. They have reps here you can PM by the way.