1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Facebook | Twitter | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!


Discussion in 'Casino Industry Discussion' started by Casinomeister, May 27, 2004.

    May 27, 2004
  1. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member


    For immediate release 27 May 2004


    Third list of Seal awards contains leading Cassava online casinos.

    Operations from one of the biggest and most marketed casino groups on the Internet, Cassava feature in the latest announcement of Seal awards by eCOGRA (eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance).

    In the third Seal awards announcement this year from eCOGRA, the following Cassava casinos join 41 other successful Seal operations:

    Casino On Net (You must register/login in order to see the link.)
    Reef Club Casino (You must register/login in order to see the link.)

    "We're delighted to welcome these new Seal bearers that have passed the rigorous third party inspection process carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Cassava presented a significant challenge for the audit process due to its size and the Compliance Committee was particularly pleased with the way in which the assessment was conducted, and the response of the organisation to putting in place the necessary controls and procedures required by eCOGRAs eGAP," says Andrew Beveridge, CEO of eCOGRA. "The initiative is gathering momentum at a gratifying rate and we are currently in discussions with a number of providers and the casinos using their software. Other casinos are currently undergoing the inspection process and I am confident that we will soon be seeing a diversity of operations powered by different software providers on our Seal list."

    Beveridge emphasised that any software provider committed to the ideals of the organisation and meeting its probity and other requirements was more than welcome to apply for membership. The goal of the initiative is to guide players to safe, fair and efficient casinos operating to carefully developed and fully enforced regulatory standards.

    eCOGRA is an independent, strongly funded, non-profit organisation that has evolved a set of practical operating regulations to ensure fair gaming, player protection and efficiency. Called the eGAP or Generally Accepted Practices, the regulations embrace some 15 areas of casino operations. Before being awarded the eCOGRA Seal members must undergo stringent inspections by third party professional bodies, and operations are subsequently monitored to ensure ongoing compliance. eCOGRA has an online complaints facility for any player with a legitimate grievance against any member casino.

    Issued by: Andrew Beveridge, CEO
    Date: 27 May 2004
    Website: You must register/login in order to see the link.
    Telephone: +44 20 7887 1480
    Email: mailto: This email is not visible to you.
    Last edited: May 28, 2004
  2. May 28, 2004
  3. dominique

    dominique Dormant account

    The Boonies
    I especially like the email address on the bottom. :D
  4. May 28, 2004
  5. bethug

    bethug Banned User - Winner of the "<a href="http://www.c

    If PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing the testing , that dont mean anything. They just got sued and lost.

    We need truegambler to keep doing his thing to expose some of these casinos.

    Well casino on net is a good casino beside there long payouts
  6. May 28, 2004
  7. jpm

    jpm Dormant account

    Actually, PWC settled and did not admit any wrong doing. That's a BIG difference from getting sued and losing!
  8. May 28, 2004
  9. sw2003

    sw2003 Dormant account

    somewhere :)
    There might be a big difference legally. In terms of public opinion, why
    would they pay somebody if they are faultless!
  10. May 28, 2004
  11. rowmare

    rowmare Dormant account

    Webmeister and mom.
    Vancouver Island
    Settling out of court is in no way an admission of guilt. With very large companies, it is often more economical to just settle things.
  12. May 28, 2004
  13. rowmare

    rowmare Dormant account

    Webmeister and mom.
    Vancouver Island

    To save many more millions of dollars in legal costs than settling would cost. It is very common that a very large company will settle out of court, whether guilty or not, just to save time and money.

    Also, a long and drawn-out legal battle does more to shred a company's reputation - even when innocent (you know how the press is), than a settlement.

    Don't you people read John Grisham? :D
  14. May 28, 2004
  15. jetset

    jetset RIP Brian CAG

    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    "If PricewaterhouseCoopers is doing the testing , that dont mean anything. They just got sued and lost."

    I have a real problem with this sort of groundless, all-condemning statement Bethug, particularly when it is used to denigrate an honest attempt at regulation to which you seem to be personally opposed in favour of the OCA system. That is apparently your purpose here, I believe - joining Caruso in making negative posts on every occasion that a positive eCOGRA story is aired.

    And this is a positive story, with the industry's largest, arguably best reputed and most successful casino group, led by a highly respected businessman submitting itself to regulation and giving the lie to earlier accusations that eCOGRA was an exclusive MGS club (btw you guys should read Ralph King's story on John Anderson as an indication of his client commitment)

    We currently have insufficient detail on this USA litigation on which to make valid statements connecting it with or using it to make off-the-cuff pronouncements upon the global integrity of Pricewaterhouse Coopers diversity of international business services, and that includes the TGTR test and monitoring system which is probably but a small part of a very large range of activities in both developed and developing countries.

    Settling on litigation is widely practised in business for economic, business, ethical and professional reasons, and as JPM points out it does not constitute an admission of guilt. It may not resonate favourably in terms of public opinion, but imv it does not condemn every facet of PwC operations, everywhere or justify the sort of comment made here.

    This may not suit everyone's agenda, but it may be wiser to hold until the content of the wrongdoing is made public, which is sure to follow such a large case against PwC's audit client, Raytheon in the USA which is the main party being sued by shareholders from what I can see above.

    In the meantime, I hope that Truegambler does continue doing his thing as Bethug promotes.... but perhaps with a more professional and structured approach prepared to stand behind results from which all involved can benefit.
  16. May 28, 2004
  17. bethug

    bethug Banned User - Winner of the "<a href="http://www.c

    Jetset, Point blank we need a neutral party, not a party made by the software company to regulate. Be real, now. Also micro got there big bank roll from having a crooked game in the past. Let micro show all there player logs prior too 2003. No matter what you say, they got paid thru micro, alot of companies say there non profit , dont men nothing

    Define professional, cause most people i know that say there professional steal. Most people that got money steals, so please define professional. Truegamblers and put all these casinos on check.

    Jetset can pricewater test the casino out any time? Also would PWC let us know if they game is fixed? hell no
  18. May 28, 2004
  19. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    LOL. People are entitled to "Join me" if they agree with me. They are equally entitled to "join Jet" if they agree with you.

    "Hitler was an evil sonofabitch"

    Is that a not a "negative" statement? Do you agree that, negativity aside, it may be somewhat valid?

    LOL. Long Live Justifiable Negativity.

    It doesn't matter how much of this stuff you boys churn out, it doesn't change the facts; and since you made a perfectly reasonable post in another thread about NOT being a casino yes-man (or words to that effect) you should realize that the problems will not go away and need to be addressed if you want any credibility for your organization.

    As far as we know:

    There is no data.

    There is no process.

    Additionally, what we DO know:

    The funding for the "verification" is supplied by those SAME people being verified!

    EVERY, and I mean EVERY, intelligent, non casino-affiliated poster (Rowmare is an affiliate and therefore compromised) has dismissed the claim to "verify" the software as meaningless. EVERY single one. Not just me. You can dismiss me - one person - if you want, but you cannot dismiss EVERYBODY. If EVERYBODY sees the problem, problem there is.

    Those are the facts. There is no evidence of ANYTHING beyond that which you and Bryan tell us. This is quite utterly inadequate. It matters not one jot how many glowing reports you folk issue, it changes nothing.

    And yes, the fact that those virgin divinties at PWC have decided to cough up $50,000,000 to avoid going to court on corruption charges is ***cough*** unfortunate timing, to say the least.
  20. May 28, 2004
  21. bethug

    bethug Banned User - Winner of the "<a href="http://www.c

    all i can say caurso is *preach* on
  22. May 29, 2004
  23. jetset

    jetset RIP Brian CAG

    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Typically, you not only mangle the truth on eCOGRA in your continued attacks on this sincere regulatory body, but need to capitalise or figuratively raise your voice again, Caruso possibly assuming that the noise level will make your argument more convincing.

    And you assume with customary but misplaced over-confidence that you have widespread support for your admitted tactic of trashing the rapidly growing collection of casinos committed to better service on the Internet through practical regulation. What I see are the same few posters rising to support your steadily eroding contention that this is not a genuine effort to improve already pretty respectable casinos.

    Once again I searched your post for something constructive, but found nothing so it seems that you still offer only the same suspicion and negativity toward something that offers real benefits to players. And I believe you are in the minority in doing so, because this is something the industry needs and eCOGRA is steadily and efficiently making available.

    These attacks of yours are repetitive and take nothing but your ego forward, but let's try another probably wasted investment of time to look at the real facts devoid of your prejudices:

    1) There has been no lack of transparency on the initial funding of eCOGRA - it came jointly from the biggest casino operators on the internet Cassava, and from one of the top software providers, Microgaming. Both companies have pretty impressive reputations in terms of their professional approach to business and cannot be simply dismissed as undertaking a shallow ( presumably very expensive) "PR stunt" for all your speculation to the contrary.

    Regulation is one of the main business drives in this industry at present - confirmed repeatedly by speakers at GIGSE this year and that should illustrate that CON and MGS are ahead of the game since the eCOGRA regulatory initiative is now two years forward. There is nothing sinister in such a move - it's a win-win because by introducing enforced and genuine regulations casinos give better service, improve performance, earn more jurisdictional respect and consequently attract more business. For the player there's a better, safer gambling experience, prompt payouts and a responsive and independent dispute resolution process which even you admit is working effectively despite first decrying it.

    2) You made much of the fact that the first two tranches of casinos awarded the seal were from Microgaming, implying in your posts that this was an exclusive MGS marketing scam. That has been proved false by the announcement of the CON awards. There will, I am confident be further software providers on board which will continue to erode your position on this point.

    3) You accused the eCOGRA seal inspection and award system of being nothing more than a tool for the funding founders instead of the independently directed third party process that it really is, deliberately downplaying the internationally respected and fiercely independent directors Hirst, Catania and Galston who the founders insisted from the outset control this and the monitoring and dispute processes to ensure true independence.

    These same directors consulted experts internationally in setting the wide ranging regulations at high standards which you have repeatedly shrugged off as of no value despite their considered and practical player-sensitive construction. Next month eCOGRA will be presenting these regulations to a gathering of jurisdictional bodies interested in comparative exchanges on real and consistent regulation.

    4) In your increasingly desperate efforts to denigrate eCOGRA you recently combed through their site disregarding the transparency and detail that you found there before finally pouncing on the semantic issue of the Players/Players' seal wording on which to beat up on the organisation without justification.

    5) You presumably understand (I am not sure if you do from your latest diatribes) that software providers pay membership fees to eCOGRA whilst casinos that apply for the Seal pay the third party Seal professional inspection fees levied by PwC?

    6) I believe that the argument on which you have received some support is that surrounding the TGTR, which you have contrived to present as a lack of transparency and therefore dishonesty. PwC as the independent third party for testing and inspection has declined to disclose the proprietary techniques and software involved in their system and there have been some good arguments for and against that standpoint. But the fact remains that despite your repeated accusations of secrecy and collusion (extending yesterday even to supporting the bringing into this debate unrelated and settled litigation against PwC in the States) you are not in a position to show that the Total Gaming Transaction Review system is anything but the reliable and comprehensive system for monitoring software that PwC as a reputable multi national company of significance claim it is.

    You and a few others will no doubt obdurately continue to attempt to trash eCOGRA, but my feeling is that events have pretty much already proved you wrong and moved on. This initiative is making solid progress and showing in a practical way that it is a system of regulation that can work to the benefit of everyone but the crooks and thieves at the lower end of the industry. It may even help to bridge the gap between casino and player, although that will clearly only apply to those entities with the foresight and ability to comply with the requirements.

    Finally Caruso I suggest you read the US Raytheon item posted by Bethug again before throwing words like "corruption" around in relation to a respectable company...I don't believe the release said anything of the sort.
  24. May 29, 2004
  25. rowmare

    rowmare Dormant account

    Webmeister and mom.
    Vancouver Island
    Caruso, I really am not "compromised". I have the ability to see both sides of things, and the integrity not to promote disreputable casinos. I resent deeply that you have put my integity in question.

    I am neither for nor against eCOGRA. Like a lot of us, I am waiting for the proof in the pudding, so to speak. I don't know enough about eCOGRA to make any judgement whatsoever.

    I'm just piping up in these threads because overt negativity is a pet peeve of mine when it goes beyond playing the devil's advocate. It annoys the hell outta me.

    As for the fact that the casinos being tested by eCOGRA are paying them for it, it's pretty much the way almost everything is done. Pilots pay to be tested. Drivers pay to be tested.

    People/companies who are audited pay for it - does that necessarily mean the audit is corrupt or biased?

    That argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. It really doesn't.

    It is important to be cautious in these matters, and nay-sayers play an important role. I do trust Jetset's opinion, though. Jetset has credibility.

    Anyway, Caruso, lets not get into personal assaults over this stuff. There are far more important things to get our shit in a knot about.

    I am not compromised. I think for myself and if I don't like something about any casino - particularly how they deal with players, etc., they won't be on my pages. It's just that simple.
  26. May 29, 2004
  27. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    I'm saying that the financial relationship is compromising. If I ask a question about Crazy Vegas and you answer, do think that knowledge of the fact that you're an affiliate and you carry a banner for Crazy Vegas high on your MG listings is potentially relevant to my judging your answer? Of course it is. There's a fine line between being trustworthy and just plain stupid and naive.

    Why have you removed your site from your signature? I appreciate your honesty in carrying it in the first place, but it does bring to the fore the whole question of deceptive postings by affiliates (in general and not aimed at you specifically); there's one affiliate at WOL who's NEVER revealed her web site. Some secretive shit, huh?

    Moving along to Jetset's diatribe...
  28. May 29, 2004
  29. spearmaster

    spearmaster RIP Ted

    Devil's Advocate
    It may be relevant to you but that does not under any circumstances give you any right to call her position compromised.

    Got2Bet does exactly the same thing. But did it ever occur to you that we will only promote casinos that we believe are going to provide the player a fair and enjoyable experience? If I put up hundreds of banners for everything from Casino Bar to 32Red, you might then be able to make some sort of claim that the bottom line is the determinant factor.

    But that is not the case for me anyhow, as you well know, and to imply that Rowmare is automatically compromised simply because she's got a banner on her site simply does not hold water.

    Come up with some better reasoning and people might actually listen - unless you're trying to snow some of the relative newbies in here. I definitely agree with you on the wording of the seal - but I also think that what Jetset is saying is true in that you're just looking for a reason to stir the pot.

    Whether or not you like eCOGRA, I still think their objectives are worthwhile and I am willing to give them a chance to grow - but that does not mean that I will approve of everything they do, not by a long shot.

    Such is life. I personally think your efforts could be turned to something a lot more useful than trying to denigrate an organization - a new one at that, and with a lot of respected firepower. You can come in here and complain all you like but if it's not constructive, no one will care.
  30. May 29, 2004
  31. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    No can do. I made two statements regarding the obvious problem with investing the software side Ecogra with any credibility. You have now answered those questions with the following two statements:

    Funding: "There has been no lack of transparency on the initial funding of eCOGRA - it came jointly from the biggest casino operators on the internet Cassava, and from one of the top software providers, Microgaming."

    I know where the funding comes from, as you know. And this is NOT the "lack of transparancy" issue - that relates to the software verification. The fact that the financial relationship between Ecogra and the casinos is in the open does not make it less probelematic. Bought verification is fake verification.


    Software verification: "PwC as the independent third party for testing and inspection has declined to disclose the proprietary techniques and software involved in their system"

    Thank you for that. Now we know that NOTHING will EVER be disclosed about either the data or the collection process. We have to "trust" PWC to tell us the truth.

    OK, Jetset. No problem. :) At least that matter is now cleared up. There is NO software "verification".

    Careful with those assumptions. I've never claimed "widespread support" across the board, and of course I'm in the minority. Who reads the boards? 15% of the gambling public? And how many of THEM have their heads up their arses or their hands in the casino cash register?

    But take a look for a moment at what the "minority" consists of: Me, Dave, Dirk, Cipher, Grandmaster, Eek and others. None of these people are exactly gullible fools, and they've been around. (There a plenty, but PLENTY, more such people who read the boards and hold identical opinions but who simply chose not to comment.) Yes, it's a minority. It's a pretty strong one, however. And who has expressed opposing views? You (obviously), Bryan (top rank affiliate), Rowmare (affiliate), Dominique (affiliate) etc...are you getting the picture? There's not a lot of player confidence in this thing, is there? Why not? Because of those unpleasant realities I KEEP reiterating and which you KEEP attempting to dismiss as "noise", "negativity", etc ad inf. It doesn't wash. My objections are valid and people agree with me. The people who COUNT, the PLAYERS - not those with their fingers in the till.

    My posts are entirely constructive. I've explained what they need for the exercise to be more than meaningful rather than meaningless. That they choose to NOT do so is not my problem! Why am I "prejudiced" because I want transparancy? I'm "prejudiced" against bullshit, I'll grant you that.

    I agree with all that other than any suggestion that the software verification claim is anything more than meaningless.

    No, that wasn't me - I think Dirk mentioned that. I don't care if it's a MG monopoly or all casinos out there. The only matter of any relevance is the transparancy of the software verification.

    You're going insane. How are you privvy to my thought processes and when I do what and where? I looked at the Ecogra seal itself, on one of the Fortune Lounge casinos , and commented on the very much NOT "semantic" issue. It's misleading. And for the record, Got2Bet seems in agreement with that. If anyone is "desperate", it's not me. My postings are clear and calculated on this matter. Take a look at yours.

    Yes, myself and a few others will no doubt continue to call you and your fellows to task on the SAME matters every time you post the "More Coveted Ecogra Seals Awarded!!!!!!!" ads. I don't, and I doubt they do either, make any apology for continually calling the software verification aspect of this for the sham it is, for the stated reasons.
  32. May 29, 2004
  33. caruso

    caruso Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll

    Casino apologist
    "Compromised" may be the wrong word. "Biased"?

    If I'm chosing to vote Democrat or Republican, and the only facts / opinions I'm exposed to are from a Democrat candidate, which way am I most likely to vote?

    If a poster asks about, say, VPL, and you answered, would you mention the discourteous Email recently sent? If I answered, would it be mentioned? I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, but you inevitably have a different perspective.

    What's your opinion of the software validation process? Is the fact that we will never be privvy to ANYTHING not a prblem to you, particularly given your OCA stance? Do you trust PWC so totally? I don't, and I stand by my contention that lack of transparancy effectively invalidates the exercise. And I think people DO listen.
  34. May 29, 2004
  35. DeMango

    DeMango Dormant account

    Postal Clerk, Residential Contractor
    Englewood, FL USA
    "We have tested joeblowcasino and their European Blackjack pays out 99.59%, very slightly less than expected but within the bounds of fairness...." This is what we the players EXPECT. Untill then Caruso - 1, Jetset - 0. I'm not sure why all can't understand this. Who cares if a casino "pays" if it will not need to??????

  36. May 29, 2004
  37. rowmare

    rowmare Dormant account

    Webmeister and mom.
    Vancouver Island
    If an affiliate carries a banner high on his/her website, could that not simply mean that they believe the casino to be a respectable, well run organization?

    If that makes one biased - to have a high opinion of a casion - then you are right, Caruso, I believe I just may be biased.

    To make you happy, I put my url back on my signature. I removed it when it occurred to me that it might be considered spaming the forum.
    Last edited: May 29, 2004
  38. May 29, 2004
  39. spearmaster

    spearmaster RIP Ted

    Devil's Advocate
    Different in that I am able to see both sides of the coin - for sure. Similar in that I see the player's side of things, not least because I am a player myself, but also because I see various comments and complaints from all sorts of players.

    The email itself was not particularly appealing, that's for sure - but I have also learned that people from different places, who grew up under different circumstances, don't always see things the same way. Some people may have read the email as a nasty one; others as just matter-of-fact.

    I do not have a fully-formed opinion at this stage. Yes, I like to be privy to as much as possible - I would like to know what Dubya does at 7 in the evening too, but these things aren't always made public.

    My OCA stance has more to do with the untried, unknown methods of the system which was applied in gathering data. It has nothing to do with eCOGRA whatsoever, insofar as that eCOGRA does not gather the same sort of data and attempt to validate the findings.

    Do I trust PWC? No comment.

    Transparency? The more, the better - no doubt about it. I don't, however, believe that eCOGRA is trying to be opaque about its methods, I don't believe that it is approving every applicant who has paid money to itself or to PWC for undergoing the Seal approval process, and I don't believe that eCOGRA has any hidden objectives.

    Does this invalidate the exercise?

    The answer to that depends on what you think the exercise is. If it is to prove that the results which are obtained from a sample of plays generated by a particular software is fair, then I would say that this is not the exercise being undertaken.

    If it is to prove that eCOGRA is biased, then I would disagree.

    If it is to show that eCOGRA is not transparent, I think that's a matter of personal judgement.

    If it is to show that all applicants can "buy" certification, I disagree.

    I think what needs to be done is for eCOGRA to clearly state, or perhaps convince, players of its stated objectives. And players must not look to eCOGRA as the cure-all, end-all, for it is not. Once the players understand what eCOGRA is about, I think most of this discussion will be moot.

    For now, my position is the same as it has been from day one - noncommittal. But I would certainly give an organization with recognized, respected individuals leading the way more leeway than some unknown with great ideas but apparently unwilling to take a few extra steps to establish credibility.

Share This Page