CASSAVA CASINOS AWARDED eCOGRA SEALS

[The Dude]

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release 27 May 2004

CASSAVA CASINOS AWARDED eCOGRA SEALS

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 (www.888.com)
Reef Club Casino (www.reefclubcasino.com)

"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: www.ecogra.org
Telephone: +44 20 7887 1480
Email: mailto: [email protected]

 

[dominique]

I especially like the email address on the bottom.

 

[bethug]

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

 

[jpm]

Actually, PWC settled and did not admit any wrong doing. That's a BIG difference from getting sued and losing!

 

[sw2003]

There might be a big difference legally. In terms of public opinion, why
would they pay somebody if they are faultless!

 

[rowmare]

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

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.

 

[rowmare]

There might be a big difference legally. In terms of public opinion, why
would they pay somebody if they are faultless!

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?

 

[jetset]

"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.

 

[bethug]

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

 

[caruso]

...joining Caruso in making negative posts...

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.

 

[bethug]

all i can say caurso is *preach* on

 

[jetset]

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.

 

[rowmare]

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.

 

[caruso]

I resent deeply that you have put my integity in question.

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...

 

[spearmaster]

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?

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.

 

[caruso]

Typically, you not only mangle the truth on eCOGRA in your continued attacks on this sincere regulatory body...possibly assuming that the noise level will make your argument more convincing.

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.

And...

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".

And you assume with customary but misplaced over-confidence that you have widespread support...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...And I believe you are in the minority in doing so.

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.

Once again I searched your post for something constructive, but found nothing...These attacks of yours are repetitive and take nothing but your ego forward, but let's try another...look at the real facts devoid of your prejudices

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.

For the player there's a better, safer gambling experience, prompt payouts and a responsive and independent dispute resolution process.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[caruso]

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

"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.

 

[DeMango]

"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??????

DeMango

 

[rowmare]

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.

 

[spearmaster]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[dominique]

OOps Caruso, you threw me in a couple of pots there!

I'm saying that the financial relationship is compromising

I have explained this before: The financial relationship is an asset.

There are hundreds of casinos online, all of which want to be exposed to as many players as possible. Almost all of them want affiliates to do the job, since affiliates work for free unless they generate income for the casinos. (And frequently then they are not paid. But that is another story.)

A productive affiliate can pick and choose at will. I will generally make my ability to effect action from a casino my primary consideration of who to pick. That will help me take care of my customers - the players. I want to primarily advertise casinos I can influence. That is the case BECAUSE I MAKE THEM MONEY! They are beholden to me, not the other way around. This is a GOOD THING for players!

I don't depend on the income from any one or any group or any software group of casinos. They are all easlily replaced. It is I who is not easily replaced.

Re. citing me in support of eCOGRA:

I am in support of every effort the industry makes to self regulate.

I still wish you, Caruso, would find a way to stop yelling about everything and doing something yourself instead. With your level of energy and intelligence I think you could do something very good for players.

Whether eCOGRA is the answer to my prayers for self regulation or not, or to what extent, remains to be seen.

Re. Rowmare: She is right. Someone has to pay for audits, and usually in real life it is the entity being audited. Surely players don't want to pay for it - or do we need an organization that collects "insurance" money from players to use to pay for inspections?

I think the conventional way is better because it is easier and more just.

Caruso, - something constructive? Something we can use? Everyone can destroy things. Building things is not so easy.

Bethug - it is true that most businesses will settle out of court, whether they are right or wrong. It's just a lot easier and cheaper. I agree that one wants to keep a watchful eye - but that incident is not fit to base permanent judgement on.

 

[rowmare]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Dominique.

 

[RobWin]

Just curious if someone here may be able to answer some of my questions and concerns that I posted today in another thread regarding eCOGRA :

https://www.casinomeister.com/forum...y-50million-settlement-can-we-say-fraud.4495/

 

[jetset]

I guess the question of player support or no will manifest itself soon enough as eCOGRA continues to progress and prove it's bona fides to those sufficiently open minded to accept them - I believe it is well aware that it will have to establish its own credibility by delivering on its claims.

"For the player there's a better, safer gambling experience, prompt payouts and a responsive and independent dispute resolution process.

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

Putting to one side your antipathy and slurs on others here, Caruso perhaps we are getting somewhere at last. Am I to understand from the above that you accept that the regulations and services that eCOGRA has to offer constitute a genuine and useful initiative (obviously with the exception of the software validation on which you have focused your opposition?)

Or do you still contend that the source of the initial funding and the payment of inspection fees to an independent third party in regard to the Seal examinations invalidates the entire initiative, in addition to your stand on the software question?

You have repeatedly described the Pricewaterhouse Coopers TGTR system as "a sham" and a "rubber stamp". Do you have any evidence to suggest that it does anything other than what its inventors claim for it, or is the real answer "I don't know because the information is not available to me"?

And as an obvious follow on to that question are Microgaming and CON games in your opinion and based on your information acceptably fair?

Do you support the concept of player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry from a player protection standpoint? Alternatively would you like to see the status quo continue, or would you prefer to identify some other equally comprehensive system?

Are you prepared to accept the possibility that the directors Hirst, Galston and Catania are independent, given the information that has been provided on their role?

"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."

Interesting that you again admit to this spoiling strategy (btw - eCOGRA press releases are not "ads" but legitimate media releases of factual information to the industry) You may find yourself active in this regard as eCOGRA will undoubtedly be announcing further advances and developments in the months ahead.

 

[caruso]

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.

I don't disagree with most of what you say, except that if Dubya were the one operating the TGTR process then I'd require of him the same transparancy, and I would draw identical conclusions from his reluctance to comply. Also, we seem to be reading something pretty fundamental remarkably different based on that second statement. My understanding, based on all communications to date, is that the TGTR process does do exactly this - collect data and analyze it, as the OCA did / does. Of course, you may be referring to the fact that the software branch is apparently contracted out to PWC, and since Ecogra simply accept and report on their findings then technically this isn't one of their physical tasks. That being the case - fair enough; however, as the issuer of the seals the buck stops at their door. The facts remain the same, be they directed at Ecogra, or at PWC via Ecogra.

 

[caruso]

Am I to understand from the above that you accept that the regulations and services that eCOGRA has to offer constitute a genuine and useful initiative (obviously with the exception of the software validation on which you have focused your opposition?)

Yes. I've never had much to say on anything apart from the software aspect.

Or do you still contend that the source of the initial funding and the payment of inspection fees to an independent third party in regard to the Seal examinations invalidates the entire initiative, in addition to your stand on the software question?

If the software verification were transparent, with data and process in the open for corroboration by independent, reliable third parties (including and additionally posters here and elsewhere, and most anyone else who cared to express an opinion), then the funding is irrelevant. As I said long ago, I don't care if it's a Microgaming monopoly or every provider and casino under the sun; as long as the data / process is proven valid, it doesn't matter who shells out the money.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it does anything other than what its (TGTR) inventors claim for it, or is the real answer "I don't know because the information is not available to me"?

How can I have evidence of what is unseen / unknown? You're asking for an impossibility. They are the movers, not me. I'm the observer. If they make statements that I consider invalid without verification and I believe others may, too, I state the objection - as others have. It's not beholden to me to prove PWC / Ecogra are doing or not doing anything. Its beholden to THEM to give the evidence for their claims. They may choose to take that stance - but I don't think it'll take them very far. It certainly won't help their credibility.

And as an obvious follow on to that question are Microgaming and CON games in your opinion and based on your information acceptably fair?

LOL, yes. And FWIW, I consider THAT "verification" to be worth a whole helluva lot more than statements from industry insiders based on invisible processes. Of course, my own opinion remains irrelevant as any kind of proof, but you understand what Im getting at.

Do you support the concept of player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry from a player protection standpoint? Alternatively would you like to see the status quo continue, or would you prefer to identify some other equally comprehensive system?

I'm personally happy as things are. And of course, my own preference is for a player-orientated, independent of ANY compromise type organization such as the OCA project. THAT is pure regulation. I acknowledge SERIOUS teething problems and the huge credibility dent it took over the MG figures, but in terms of real "regulation", that is the way forward. At the same time, I have no problem with "player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry", as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits.

Are you prepared to accept the possibility that the directors Hirst, Galston and Catania are independent, given the information that has been provided on their role?

FWIW, I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt until I look into it. I've not looked at individual roles of individual members at all.

"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."

Interesting that you again admit to this spoiling strategy...

To call it a "spoiling strategy" is to give a negative slant very far from the truth. If things were as they should be with regard to the software verification I'd never have breathed a word. Nor would anybody else. Nobody is "spoiling"; they're airing valid opinions / objections.

 

[jetset]

Yes. I've never had much to say on anything apart from the software aspect.



If the software verification were transparent, with data and process in the open for corroboration by independent, reliable third parties (including and additionally posters here and elsewhere, and most anyone else who cared to express an opinion), then the funding is irrelevant. As I said long ago, I don't care if it's a Microgaming monopoly or every provider and casino under the sun; as long as the data / process is proven valid, it doesn't matter who shells out the money.



How can I have evidence of what is unseen / unknown? You're asking for an impossibility. They are the movers, not me. I'm the observer. If they make statements that I consider invalid without verification and I believe others may, too, I state the objection - as others have. It's not beholden to me to prove PWC / Ecogra are doing or not doing anything. Its beholden to THEM to give the evidence for their claims. They may choose to take that stance - but I don't think it'll take them very far. It certainly won't help their credibility.



LOL, yes. And FWIW, I consider THAT "verification" to be worth a whole helluva lot more than statements from industry insiders based on invisible processes. Of course, my own opinion remains irrelevant as any kind of proof, but you understand what Im getting at.



I'm personally happy as things are. And of course, my own preference is for a player-orientated, independent of ANY compromise type organization such as the OCA project. THAT is pure regulation. I acknowledge SERIOUS teething problems and the huge credibility dent it took over the MG figures, but in terms of real "regulation", that is the way forward. At the same time, I have no problem with "player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry", as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits.



FWIW, I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt until I look into it. I've not looked at individual roles of individual members at all.



To call it a "spoiling strategy" is to give a negative slant very far from the truth. If things were as they should be with regard to the software verification I'd never have breathed a word. Nor would anybody else. Nobody is "spoiling"; they're airing valid opinions / objections.

From your responses to my questions above, Caruso I believe it is fair to say that your opposition to eCOGRA is not the concept, funding, regulations or infrastructure, but is focused on the transparency or rather lack thereof of the PwC software verification system. Your contention is that there is insufficient information available for you to say one way or another that it is inherently good or bad, and this invalidates the entire initiative.

I don't see eCOGRA failing, and it would be a pity if it did because imo it offers the player the real benefit of a safer and better gambling experience.

Reading through your responses above outlining your personal disclosure requirements from PwC in this connection, I very much doubt that these will be met for the third party proprietary reasons discussed previously, and PwC's continued silence on the subject would seem to confirm that.

It unfortunately creates something of a stalemate in this exchange, because eCOGRA and its not inexperienced or disreputable members are clearly comfortable that the PwC arrangement provides a satisfactory level of games fairness. They are therefore unlikely to switch to an alternative like the Truegambler OCA, which is unproven, has a patchy record since launch, comes from a largely unknown source and appears to be inadequately funded and in need of some sort of big-name verification itself.

I think that your personal opinion that regulation in the industry is unnecessary is at variance with the views of many experts in this business for reasons relating to better player protection and credibility, but we can put that aside for the moment.

I believe that your repeatedly stated intention to post your adverse opinion of eCOGRA every time a release from that organisation appears does constitute a "spoiling tactic" if those releases are legitimate informatives for the industry. You have voiced your opposition and if there is nothing further to add, this is deliberate "spoiling" in my opinion.

Speaking personally, I am not going to be drawn into a futile, time-wasting and similarly repetitious argument every time you and your supporters adopt such a tactic, so we are left with a generally unsatisfactory situation that does not further the issue of regulation or player protection at all.

Since you appear to claim wide support from the player community I would suggest to you that there may be a more constructive approach to breaking this deadlock.

Frame a petition covering the sort of credibility for software verification that the players feel eCOGRA should have, propose a player spokesman, mobilise widespread support for it and open a dialogue with eCOGRA itself as the player's representative?

That would seem to me to be a more productive approach than bad-mouthing eCOGRA every time its name appears.

 

[Clayman]

I think it was something the meister recently said that made me wonder what is it that the Nevada Gaming Control Board does that seems to allow most people to believe that every game in every casino is fair all the time?

Do we know exactly what laboratory tests are run on the slot chips and that it is that chip that ends up in a machine? Do they run chi-square tests on card distributions - I think not. Are the members of the Commission paid by the casinos? Basically, I'd say yes. Do we have access to whatever audit papers are produced in audits? Don't know. If we did, what would that prove anyway?

In other words, I've always felt that no matter how much is shown or proved there can always be an argument that it is not enough or the process may be defective. Would I like to see more? Sure I would. Will it ever be enough? No, it never will. You may as well try to prove God exists.

So, no matter what happens, either you believe or you don't. Ultimately, it's an act of faith. Believe whatever you want.

 

[GrandMaster]

The Nevada Gaming Commission has quite detailed publicly available documents on casino procedures, internal audit standards and slot machine specifications. I have not found anything on randomness testing, except lots of references by online casinos to unspecified Nevada Gaming Commission standards of randomness. For card games the best guarantee is that the shuffle happens right in front of the players, although I have read someone's account of a special shuffle in a Far Eastern casino, which was designed to give an unfavourable deck to the players.

 

[GrandMaster]

Frame a petition covering the sort of credibility for software verification that the players feel eCOGRA should have, propose a player spokesman, mobilise widespread support for it and open a dialogue with eCOGRA itself as the player's representative?

I nominate caruso as transparency advocate for players.

 

[dominique]

I nominate caruso as transparency advocate for players.

I second that.

 

[jpm]

Does that mean he'd be like the invisible man?

 

[GrandMaster]

It unfortunately creates something of a stalemate in this exchange, because eCOGRA and its not inexperienced or disreputable members are clearly comfortable that the PwC arrangement provides a satisfactory level of games fairness.

However reputable and good they are, they are not infallible. Judging by their biographies, they don't have mathematical training, so a mistake in the definition of game fairness got past them. I found it and it will be fixed, so I have had to shelve my plans for ecogra compliant craps with increased house edge.

TGTR is not open to scrutiny, so if there is a mistake in it, it may not be found.

 

[caruso]

LOL, I think GM's nomination contained the tiniest pinch of salt, so I don't forsee an onset of invisibility for the time being at least. And in case I'm in error regarding the salt content, I have to say I possess neither the time nor the tidy mind for such a lofty task. However, I WOULD be happy to get together a summary, reasonably representative of the general concerns expressed, and Email it to the appropriate person, if Jetset can provide me with a name and an Email address. I would also happily post the person's answer, assuming he were in agreement. That wouldn't be a bad compromise.

From your responses to my questions above, Caruso I believe it is fair to say that your opposition to eCOGRA is not the concept, funding, regulations or infrastructure, but is focused on the transparency or rather lack thereof of the PwC software verification system. Your contention is that there is insufficient information available for you to say one way or another that it is inherently good or bad, and this invalidates the entire initiative.

That's about it. A more accurate wording would be: "Your contention is that since neither the data nor the processes involved in collecting it are available for public scrutiny, this leaves us being required to accept effectively uncorroboratable statements on faith and a such invalidates the entire initiative". And yes, I agree on the stalemate remark. Honestly, I never saw any other likely result. They were never going to open these things up - and I make no apology for drawing my own conclusions as to why.

Good points from GM about the inadequacy of the NGC comparison. It's quite tricky to rig a dealt blackjack game, at least in Modern Vegas.

 

[Clayman]

The Nevada Gaming Commission has quite detailed publicly available documents on casino procedures, internal audit standards and slot machine specifications.

Yes, quite detailed procedures of what an auditor is supposed to do but how do we know they are actually competently done? Just because an auditor checks the right block does not mean he did the work.

And, even if they are, you'll never know when you're being dealt seconds in a pitch game anyway. Or that the shoe is legit, or whether the dealer dropped a card in the wastebasket, or whether the random draw for a car is fixed.

Notwithstanding, the more detail provided about TGTR, the better. If, a year from now, there is no more detail than we currently seem to have, I'll be more than a little disappointed.

 

[Clayman]

A more accurate wording would be: "Your contention is that since neither the data nor the processes involved in collecting it are available for public scrutiny, this leaves us being required to accept effectively uncorroboratable statements on faith and a such invalidates the entire initiative".

Why didn't you feel this way the day after True Gambler released his results? On that day, you had complete faith in every erroneous conclusion he put forth stating "This is indeed the UNBELIEVEABLE conclusion:... Microgaming is rigged. Now it's official."

People believe what they want to and that's OK.

 

[jpm]

Yes, quite detailed procedures of what an auditor is supposed to do but how do we know they are actually competently done? Just because an auditor checks the right block does not mean he did the work.

And, even if they are, you'll never know when you're being dealt seconds in a pitch game anyway. Or that the shoe is legit, or whether the dealer dropped a card in the wastebasket, or whether the random draw for a car is fixed.

Clayman, using this logic, how could we trust ANYONE who certifies the games are fair, whether their methodology is fully disclosed or not? If you doubt everyone's audits, then no certification, no matter how detailed or transparent, would be acceptable.

 

[Clayman]

Clayman, using this logic, how could we trust ANYONE who certifies the games are fair, whether their methodology is fully disclosed or not? If you doubt everyone's audits, then no certification, no matter how detailed or transparent, would be acceptable.

Exactly. We can't. Cheating occurs every day in Nevada casinos but I never think I'm being cheated when I'm there. Even if one believes every audit, it would only prove the games were possibly fair then but not, necessarily, now.
My point is that, ultimately, we choose to believe what we want when we play tomorrow. We will never have absolute certainty, whether it's a Big 8 accounting firm auditing Raytheon's books or whether any software provider is fair. Shareholders suing auditors is par for the course and proves nothing. I used to work for a multi-national conglomerate with $2 billion in sales that ended up on the cover of Business Week magazine before we filed bankrupcty, all with financials certified by auditors. Of course they were sued and deservedly so. But I choose to believe these are the exceptions to the rule.
Do you think the money in our checking accounts is real? Only if we all don't try to get green cash tomorrow at 9 AM.
It's tough enough just convincing everyone as to whether Neteller has a legitimate random draw or not, let alone that on-line gambling experience is fair. Regrettably, we don't live in a perfect world.

But we try to get as close as we can and that's a good thing.

I do think eCogra can get closer than they are. And, for now, I think, and hope, they eventually will. If not, I'll most likely continue to believe anyway chances are good I'm getting a fair game in Vegas and on the Internet despite also knowing it's possible I'm not.

 

[jetset]

I nominate caruso as transparency advocate for players.

From this I take it that Grandmaster has the same attitude to eCOGRA that Caruso has - if you can be personally comfortable with the software verification you have no other serious beefs with eCOGRA.

However, I think you need a little more organisation of effort than simply making ad hoc nominations on a single message board if you are to have credibility.

There are hundreds of players (and I include all genuinely concerned and interested posters in that) on the leading message boards, and if you can organise yourselves so as to marshal a strong representation from this audience, an open dialogue with eCOGRA may be the most powerful and constructive thing you have done thus far....and have the best chance for success.

It may require Grandmaster, Eek, Cipher, DaveR, DirkD or one of Caruso's other supporters to work those boards from which Caruso is excluded but that should not present too great a problem.

Bethug - with respect, you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Taking your attitude of total opposition to eCOGRA is not going to make this initiative go away and it certainly will not take this debate further forward imo.

"And yes, I agree on the stalemate remark. Honestly, I never saw any other likely result. They were never going to open these things up - and I make no apology for drawing my own conclusions as to why."

Caruso, you may well impose your own personal views and conclusions on this issue, but that is all they remain and that does not make your opinion fact.

IMO, this is not a promising way to kickstart an initiative that shows eCOGRA you speak for a significant number of people who share your views to the extent that they should consider an approach more in line with your thinking.

This could entail expense and a significant policy shift from their obvious present comfort level with the professional integrity and honesty of a major third party service provider, and the level of support for your suggestions would definitely be a consideration.

We all have busy lives, but many people in this industry make space for voluntary causes in which they strongly believe.

Your personal views and position are well established, but in the present impasse I am suggesting the more constructive course of you and your supporters taking the time and trouble to assess public opinion on eCOGRA and then act on it.

If this public opinion conforms to your views then taking the issue to a more productive level than hostile message board posts would be a valuable move forward.

 

[jetset]

However reputable and good they are, they are not infallible. Judging by their biographies, they don't have mathematical training, so a mistake in the definition of game fairness got past them. I found it and it will be fixed, so I have had to shelve my plans for ecogra compliant craps with increased house edge.

TGTR is not open to scrutiny, so if there is a mistake in it, it may not be found.

This, and for reasons of independent conduct is clearly why eCOGRA has outsourced software verification, inspection and technical monitoring to Pricewaterhouse Coopers, who apparently do have the requisite professional capabilities. But this is a circular argument and takes us no further forward.

 

[caruso]

Why didn't you feel this way the day after True Gambler released his results?

Because I know them a bit, and trust their integrity impliciltly since they have no alternative agenda or otherwise malicious motivation. Of course, my attitude was unprofessional and I wouldn't repeat it. 20/20 hindsight and all that. I don't trust PWC one iota, and in light of the various incidents of auditor malpractice, that's a pretty fair stance.

To say it's a leap of faith to play blackjack in Nevada and therefore online play should not be subject to different requirements is really going it some. In this country, a deck must be fanned out for public inspection prior to play. I'm pretty sure it's the same over there. That a card may be "dropped" unnoticed, or that the deck is fixed between inspection and placing in the shoe is really not credible. But cheating online happens TODAY - it's been proved several times. To say that the two situations are comparable is not justifiable.

If the data and the collection processes were publically available it would be a GARGANTUAN step towards 100% assuredly authentic reporting. There would be no "leap of faith" - much as there isn't playing Nevada blackjack - above comments notwithstanding. THEN the two situations would be comparable.

Jetset, you got that contact Email for them, or should I pick one at random from the site?

 

[jetset]

Use [email protected] Caruso, although I think you are now fudging this issue in an attempt to find an easier way than actually mustering support for your views.

I do not think a communication without evidence of solid and significant support is going to cut it, as I said in my post above. That will call for some commitment and effort beyond drafting a letter or making message board posts. Well worth it, though imo.

I repeat:

However, I think you need a little more organisation of effort than simply making ad hoc nominations on a single message board if you are to have credibility.

There are hundreds of players (and I include all genuinely concerned and interested posters in that) on the leading message boards, and if you can organise yourselves so as to marshal a strong representation from this audience, an open dialogue with eCOGRA may be the most powerful and constructive thing you have done thus far....and have the best chance for success.

It may require Grandmaster, Eek, Cipher, DaveR, DirkD or one of Caruso's other supporters to work those boards from which Caruso is excluded but that should not present too great a problem.

IMO, this is not a promising way to kickstart an initiative that shows eCOGRA you speak for a significant number of people who share your views to the extent that they should consider an approach more in line with your thinking.

This could entail expense and a significant policy shift from their obvious present comfort level with the professional integrity and honesty of a major third party service provider, and the level of support for your suggestions would definitely be a consideration.

We all have busy lives, but many people in this industry make space for voluntary causes in which they strongly believe.

Your personal views and position are well established, but in the present impasse I am suggesting the more constructive course of you and your supporters taking the time and trouble to assess public opinion on eCOGRA and then act on it.

If this public opinion conforms to your views then taking the issue to a more productive level than hostile message board posts would be a valuable move forward.

I think I am going to let your comments on PwC vs Truegambler in terms of integrity and agenda, and the validity of a condemnation based on information on which we have no detail yet pass in the interests of focus here!

 

[caruso]

Fudging? I don't recall offering, or accepting, the role of General Secretary of the Squeeze Ecogra's Nuts committee which has been graciously, if, I might add, possibly a tad ironically, bestowed upon me. I pursue things my own way. If others prefer other ways, may they go ahead; it won't be me, for the forseeable future.

Something like this would never have "majority" support, because the "majority" can't even find their way to a message board, let alone interest themselves in and absorb matters pertaining to regulation and the ifs and buts thereof. Those of like views represent an extreme minority. I challenge anyone to deny that it's a quality minority, however, compromising experienced, intelligent people - obviously rare amongst gamblers.

However, I WILL go ahead as I've suggested.

 

[rowmare]

This going 'round and 'round, searching for and demanding absolute perfection reminds me of a quote by George F. Will:

The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement.

 

[jetset]

Fudging? I don't recall offering, or accepting, the role of General Secretary of the Squeeze Ecogra's Nuts committee which has been graciously, if, I might add, possibly a tad ironically, bestowed upon me. I pursue things my own way. If others prefer other ways, may they go ahead; it won't be me, for the forseeable future.

Something like this would never have "majority" support, because the "majority" can't even find their way to a message board, let alone interest themselves in and absorb matters pertaining to regulation and the ifs and buts thereof. Those of like views represent an extreme minority. I challenge anyone to deny that it's a quality minority, however, compromising experienced, intelligent people - obviously rare amongst gamblers.

However, I WILL go ahead as I've suggested.

OK, so we've established that:

Caruso doesn't like eCOGRA because he's unhappy with the software verification. He can't say that it is right or wrong due to PwC's lack of transparency, but he does feel that the present eCOGRA Seal holders offer a fair game.

His way of expressing this personal opinion is to post on the message boards that accept him. He intends to do this every time the eCOGRA name appears, even where he has nothing new to add.

He isn't prepared to do anything more than that, although he did offer to draft a letter to eCOGRA.

He doesn't feel that regulation is necessary.

He thinks the OCA is conditionally the best way to test software.

He feels that any attempt to assess and muster public support for a persuasive and organised submission of his objections to eCOGRA is not an option because, "Something like this would never have "majority" support, because the "majority" can't even find their way to a message board, let alone interest themselves in and absorb matters pertaining to regulation and the ifs and buts thereof."

He names those whose supportive views he respects, "Those of like views represent an extreme minority. I challenge anyone to deny that it's a quality minority, however, compromising experienced, intelligent people - obviously rare amongst gamblers."

I guess that's the end of this exchange, then - very positive as usual, Caruso. Not.

 

[caruso]

There's an awful lot in there which is misleading and incorrect:

"Caruso doesn't like eCOGRA because he's unhappy with the software verification. He can't say that it is right or wrong due to PwC's lack of transparency."

That is an ABSOLUTE misrepresentation and you know it very well at this point. What I may judge "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant because the lack of transparancy ITSELF is what invalidates the excercise and prevents the judgement. It is NOT that the L.O.T causes a failure to form an opinion. The L.O.T invalidates it. It is neither "right" nor "wrong". It is invalid.

"...but he does feel that the present eCOGRA Seal holders offer a fair game."

Irrelevant. My data proves nothing.

"He doesn't feel that regulation is necessary."

You should have been a politician - you misquote, and out of context. Point me to ANY remark I have made to say that regulation is GENERALLY unnecessary. The comment you are referring to contains a HUGE caveat. Can you correct your error before I point it out?

"He thinks the OCA is conditionally the best way to test software."

That much is correct, although a more accurate representation would be to say that the only VALID regulation of this kind is that which is independent from any compromise, independently collected and open for inspection. The OCA data was collected without Microgaming's knowledge (the first year or so), from actual players, some of whom have identified themselves publically as I recall. That's why I favour the OCA model - but the principle, not necessarily that ACTUAL model.

Simply because you don't agree with me doesn't make my contribution "not positive". The concerns have been publically aired and Ecogra - via yourself - has been challenged. We know now also that PWC have refused to publicise any aspect of the process or the data. That some players will now probably view in a more realistic light the software verification claim, based on the facts and opinions expressed, is to me a very positive move forward. That some players will NOT buy the hype and remain correctly cautious and sceptical, is positive. Calling to task regulation and pseudo-regulation is positive. If it weren't for the message boards, to this day I'd still be inspecting RTG sites to discover who is Gold certified and who is Platinum certified Safebet (LOL, I used to do that), and I might EVEN be taking Mike Craig's OPA stamp to actually mean something. That I do so no longer is very positive - for me and my wallet; not for Safebet's nor Craig's.

 

[jetset]

All I see is backpedalling, Caruso at the idea that you might actually need to do something beyond making repetitive postings if you want to bring about positive change for the benefit of players.

"Misquoted and out of context" - the standard political defence. What did you say about regulation that contains this huge caveat?

"I'm personally happy as things are." That's how you started out. Personally you see no need for regulation.

But then we have the OCA commercial: "And of course, my own preference is for a player-orientated, independent of ANY compromise type organization such as the OCA project. THAT is pure regulation."

And I suspect the real reason for your attacks on eCOGRA, which is independently governed and independently tested on player transactions.

But you then equivocate with "I acknowledge SERIOUS teething problems and the huge credibility dent it (OCA) took over the MG figures," Not a big deal - all it did was trigger people like yourself to vociferously attack respectable companies like CON and Microgaming on flawed information.

Yet despite this and the other now well known funding and validation problems with OCA and the unlikelyhood of it being seriously accepted as things stand at present you still see it as "....but in terms of real "regulation", that is the way forward."

And you therefore try to pull down an existing organisation like eCOGRA that is better equipped, structured and funded to undertake a more comprehensive task.

But hold on, then you say, "At the same time, I have no problem with "player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry", as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits."

Can we finally assume that in your personal opinion regulation is unnecessary, but that there might be some validity in contrary opinions on that?

Then you start dancing around the lack of PwC transparency which in your personal opinion invalidates the entire eCOGRA initiative and the benefits it offers to players. Your latest statement is a model of hand-waving and does not change the fact that your opposition to eCOGRA is focused on the third party software verification and your opinion (and that of the supporters you name) on it's transparency. And indeed you are definitely not in a position to say whether the TGTR does what PwC claims for it or not.

Then again you are of the personal opinion that Microgaming casinos offer a fair game anyway....but that doesn't really suit your argument. It's irrelevant, because you now say that your data proves nothing. So we're running on personal opinion again.

Let's look at another of your statements: "The OCA data was collected without Microgaming's knowledge (the first year or so), from actual players, some of whom have identified themselves publically as I recall. That's why I favour the OCA model - but the principle, not necessarily that ACTUAL model."

OK - so now it's not the OCA you favour but something unspecific that's like it but not currently available or identified?

And with a monitored regulatory regime does it matter whether the software provider knows it is being monitored or not? The eCOGRA concept of regulation is to provide players with the protection of continuously and independently monitored software, and the fact of enforced monitoring is in itself an incentive for continued compliance. So we have the OCA (or something like it) player input, and we have the TGTR which analyses every single player transaction at eCOGRA casinos.

The rest of your post seems to me to be an attempt to dress up your continued negative attacks on eCOGRA as positive moves forward, which of course they are not. They are personal opinions repeatedly made in an attempt to discredit eCOGRA and focused on yours and your supporters' view on it's outsourced professional services.

Your continued use of the word "hype" to describe factual descriptions of eCOGRA attributes is another indication of your bias.

You are attempting to influence player opinion against eCOGRA by your posts and that is about as far as your personal commitment to redressing the faults you perceive to exist apparently goes.

IMO, you are not interested in seeing what level of support your opposition to eCOGRA has, or in mobilising it in order to establish a useful dialogue with that organisation or with PwC aimed at addressing your objections in a reasonable manner.

We are therefore left with these sort of polarised exchanges and the fruitless prospect of a reprise of your views whenever eCOGRA announces a move forward.

 

[caruso]

Positive change for the benefit of players is open to interpretation - you will inevitably see either myself or anyone else you regard as pissing on your patch as negative. I repeat, if gamblers can be be kept informed of your organizations shortcomings in terms of their transparancy and accoutability, in my opinion this is very positive. You regard it as negatve. Let others judge. And by others I mean the players, not the affiliates or the industry spokesmen.

Regarding regulation and your clearly intentional misrepresentation on my stance (intentional because I know what a wily old bird you are - no way are you capable of such a gross misunderstanding) this is what I originally said: At the same time, I have no problem with player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry, as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits. you quote this yourself further down. Translation: it doesnt concern me, as an informed player who knows the ropes, but it does others. If you cannot distinguish between my own need for regulation and that of the gambling public, generally further down the evolutionary chain and in need of nannying, I leave you to yourconfusion.

Regarding OCA / Ecogra-PWC: there is no choice here. The OCA data was found to be incorrect. THE PWC data has not been found to be anything, because to all intents and purposes it does not exist! Neither situation is of much use to anybody invalid or non-existent. However, the transparancy of the OCA type of model whether that particular operation or another based on the same principles is the basis for genuine regulation, because GIVEN validated data (and this would always be open to corroboration, as weve seen) then you have a situation which fulfils the necessary criteria: no financial compromise and transparancy in all aspects. Ecogra-PWC does not fulfil ANY criterion for acceptable regulation with regard to the software verification. Hence the preference. If this is still not clear to you, Ill try to explain again next time.

Again you repeat this irrelevant remark: And indeed you are definitely not in a position to say whether the TGTR does what PwC claims for it or not. Correct, I am not. Why? Because everything is cloaked in secrecy to the extent that, to all intents and purposes, it can reasonably be assumed that there is NO data and NO process. Is this in PWCs favour? Is the fact that opinions cannot be formed because there is nothing more tangible than quite possibly fictional statements and rubber stamps for us to look at a good thing? Ill be able to form an opinion when they give us some evidence. Since they will NEVER give us any evidence most likely because there IS no evidence I will not be able to judge the process. And you consider this in their favour? LOL, I put you in a majority of one on that one. Breaking News!!! Its official!!! Ecogra-PWC cannot be judged to be either good or bad, because the facts required for judgement to be formed are HIDDEN FROM PUBLIC VIEW! They will NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING! Long Live Ecogra-PWC, the gods of honest software regulation!!

Did I say LOL?

We are therefore left with these sort of polarised exchanges and the fruitless prospect of a reprise of your views whenever eCOGRA announces a move forward.

Fruitless? If I present just ONE gambler with the facts from a rational perspective, I serve a useful purpose.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE "Positive change for the benefit of players" is open to interpretation - you will inevitably see either myself or anyone else you regard as pissing on your patch as negative. I repeat, if gamblers can be be kept informed of your organization's shortcomings in terms of their transparancy and accoutability, in my opinion this is very positive. You regard it as "negatve". Let others judge. And by "others" I mean the players, not the affiliates or the industry spokesmen."UNQUOTE

Nope - not "my" organisation or "my patch" - eCOGRA is independently governed and professionally managed beyond my control, but unlike yourself I certainly believe in the need for real regulation with the better player protection that flows from it and that this initiative offers.

You say "let others judge" and again attempt to fragment opinions into players and those you seem to view as having no useful contribution to make such as "affiliates or industry insiders". This is regardless of the fact that many of these may additionally be players and/or have proved to have a sincere desire to see that players are respected. IMO that sort of blinkered, polarised approach is not going to assist anyone as we try and find a better way forward.

However - back to your "let others judge" observation, I believe that is all eCOGRA expects - that it will stand or fall on the performance delivered by its Seal bearers. That benefits players in my book because these are operations where player-sensitive regulations are enforced.

QUOTE Regarding regulation and your clearly intentional misrepresentation on my stance ("intentional" because I know what a wily old bird you are - no way are you capable of such a gross misunderstanding) - this is what I originally said: "At the same time, I have no problem with player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry, as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits." - you quote this yourself further down. Translation: it doesn't concern me, as an informed player who knows the ropes, but it does others. If you cannot distinguish between my own need for regulation and that of the gambling public, generally further down the evolutionary chain and in need of nannying, I leave you to your."confusion".UNQUOTE

Again, I don't see that as a misrepresentation at all. I note that you have ommitted the following from your latest quote, and that is revealing - but you actually posted "I'm personally happy as things are." That's how you started out, followed by some equivocation. Personally you see no need for regulation.

No matter how you dance around it, you personally do not see the need for regulation and are happy with the status quo. That goes to your attitude in this debate. We were discussing your personal opinions. Please have the integrity to stay with your comments or withdraw them.

However, let us agree that you do accept that despite your personal lack of the need for protection, most other players may be at a different level or have a conflicting opinion. I have to say, I find your rather patronising "...gambling public, generally further down the evolutionary chain and in need of nannying," attitude surprising to say the least.

I believe the message boards and private emails to mediators show daily that there are way too many clip joints out there. Consequently there is a need for regulation, and to distinguish casinos that are making a practical and honest effort to deliver enforced professional and trouble free service to players. As opposed to those that engage in no pays and slow pays, unfair bonus treatment and the other evils that we see in the daily parade. eCOGRA regulations are framed in such practical way and are conscientiously applied, which does that.


QUOTE Regarding OCA / Ecogra-PWC: there is no choice here. The OCA data was found to be incorrect. THE PWC data has not been found to be anything, because to all intents and purposes it does not exist! Neither situation is of much use to anybody - invalid or non-existent. However, the transparancy of the OCA type of model - whether that particular operation or another based on the same principles - is the basis for genuine regulation, because GIVEN validated data (and this would always be open to corroboration, as we've seen) then you have a situation which fulfils the necessary criteria: no financial compromise and transparancy in all aspects. Ecogra-PWC does not fulfil ANY criterion for acceptable regulation with regard to the software verification. Hence the preference. If this is still not clear to you, I'll try to explain again next time.UNQUOTE

You're going around the bushes again with this OCA thing, without offering a viable alternative. If you are now saying that OCA is not regarded as a viable alternative, why keep inserting it into the debate?

You say "However, the transparancy of the OCA type of model - whether that particular operation or another based on the same principles - is the basis for genuine regulation, because GIVEN validated data..." but there is as far as I can see no validation or conclusions beyond the publication of the stats....and you are proposing "what-ifs" models and not systems that are available for use and in existance. There is no other de facto system being presented by you here.

I am open to correction, but I cannot recall Truegambler providing the inner workings of his proprietary OCA analytical process that you seem to be requiring from PwC, and you should ask him for his views on the expense of validation btw, which has not been done on the OCA as far as I am aware.

Are you suggesting that the monthly publication of massive amounts of statistical data by PwC a la OCA would constitute verification for you?

It seems to me that you would rather see no attempt at regulation at all than a fully structured one like eCOGRA where you have a problem with the disclosure of third party proprietary testing procedures, even though you personally feel that the softwares being deployed by eCOGRA casinos are fair.

I haven't yet seen any objections from you to the claims made by some major casinos and licensing jurisdictions that specified softwares are tested by traditional testing laboratories, and this may be a useful area to explore in the present stalemate.

Assuming that the testing laboratory concerned has a respectable reputation, what amount of disclosure on the testing techniques and software used would you regard as acceptable, and what level of independent technical/professional capability would you deem necessary to make the judgement that the tests were competent and relevant?

Who would you suggest makes such an evaluation? Would this constitute sufficient validation in your opinion?

QUOTE Because everything is cloaked in secrecy to the extent that, to all intents and purposes, it can reasonably be assumed that there is NO data and NO process. Is this in PWC's favour? Is the fact that opinions cannot be formed because there is nothing more tangible than quite possibly fictional statements and rubber stamps for us to look at a good thing? I'll be able to "form an opinion" when they give us some evidence. Since they will NEVER give us any evidence - most likely because there IS no evidence - I will not be able to judge the process. UNQUOTE

I would suggest that you clearly have made assumptions and formed an opinion that insists that PwC and everything associated with it in this debate is up to no good.

No data and no process? Do you seriously believe that a member of the Big 8 international financial services companies would be a malice aforethought party to this? That they would run the legal and reputation risk of "rubber stamping" and making "fictional statements" on results from their third party clientele?

Or is there the possibility that they will not open up their independent system to the sort of inspection you appear to be demanding because it is developed in-house at considerable expense and effort by appropriate professionals and has a commercial proprietary value as a consquence?. I realise that you and you supporters will not accept that possibility, but imo it is far more likely than the ridiculous allegations you are making here about PwC's and for that matter eCOGRA's integrity...and please spare me the usual Enron and corruption retorts.

QUOTE Fruitless? If I present just ONE gambler with the facts from a rational perspective, I serve a useful purpose.UNQUOTE

I think the operative word here is probably "rational" when it comes to a personal perspective, and I don't personally see a lot of that here, Caruso. What I do see is a strong personal antipathy carried to extreme lengths, which unfortunately is blinding you to the great potential of eCOGRA and the improvement it brings to the industry .

 

[caruso]

Your association with Ecogra-PWC evidently goes some way beyond "I certainly believe in the need for real regulation"; you're their front-man, their spokesman, their reporter, their tireless apologist. You're clearly DEEPLY involved with these folk.

For the last time, these are my expressed opinions (here) on regulation: "I'm personally happy as things are" and "I have no problem with player-friendly regulation as a necessary move forward in this industry, as you asked. It doesn't much concern ME, but players come in all shapes and sizes and there have to be benefits." A blind man in a fog can ascertain from this that I am happy as things are for myself, but I appreciate that the need is there for others. It isn't important to me that you fake misunderstanding of this. My opinion is as I've stated, it's clearly expressed and any reasonable reader can see that for themselves. Those sitting in the Ecogra-PWC pocket I do not qualify as "reasonable", so you can carry on inventing misinterpretations as you like.

I have also clearly expressed what I regard as valid regulation, transparent in all matters and uncompromised (the "uncompromised" aspect is not so relevant given total transparancy, as I see it) - none of which can be claimed by Ecogra-PWC. The OCA model, which fulfilled the criteria of no compromise and transparent data (although more details on the collection process would have been needed, as was stated at the time, and no doubt those requisite details would have been published if it had been necessary, ie. if the data had not been found to be error-ridden, thus invalidating the exercise) satisfies the criteria. I have no projects of my own and no influence with the OCA, and neither is it my job to offer alternatives. That I do not have my own software regulator to offer in place of PWC does not in any way invalidate the fact that the PWC model is meaningless - it has no relevance to the matter.

"Are you suggesting that the monthly publication of massive amounts of statistical data by PwC a la OCA would constitute verification for you?"

It would certainly be a large part of it.

"I haven't yet seen any objections from you to the claims made by some major casinos and licensing jurisdictions that specified softwares are tested by traditional testing laboratories"

LOL, I know nothing about that. It remains equally meaningless, for the same reasons.

"It seems to me that you would rather see no attempt at regulation at all than a fully structured one like eCOGRA ."

Nothing at all rather than bogus offerings. Ecogra is "bogus" in the software aspect only, so they are certainly better than nothing, and they offer a handy, if unlikely to be over-used, dispute service.

Regarding all your questions about the actual details beyond the simple fact of "transpancy", I've already made comments here or at WOL about that. I don't want to repeat it all now, but I'll include it in the letter I hope to get around to writing soon to your folk on this matter.

In a nutshell, I wish everybody would drop any claim, or intention, or hope to regulate software. Regulate everything else, please. Get the likes of crooks like Cloud, Friedmann etc out of the picture once an for all by establishing a valid body that will never accept them, thus consigning them to the slag heap. Just ditch these bogus software attempts. They're (sorry, have to say it again) meaningless and they just get in the way. As somebody said, you believe it or you don't. If you believe the game is fair, play it. If you don't, either stay away or be a sucker and play a rigged game. But these things are best left I think to the players to decide for themselves, as providing authenticateable verification seems to me currently prohibitatively difficult.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this matter for the time being.