eCOGRA Again

Devo11

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Location
Canada
Has the eCOGRA done anything productive for players since its inception?

All I have heard of is a bunch of cases where they take the side of the casino because duh duh duh....they are paid and funded by the casinos.

I'm assuming after this aubit they will find that it was in no way the casinos fault but a group of rogue employees whom have now been dealt with.

When will Microgaming...oh, I mean eCOGRA come out with this decision?
 

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
I really have had enough of posting here whereby I only seem to bash casinos and gambling operations, but I really must ask:

They have made a financial commitment towards the cost of the inspection.
So how about a sizable donation to GamCare or Gamblers Anon? This would in my eyes anyhow put JF back on track. I would also be very pleased to promote them again if they did this. It is called righting a wrong.
 

Chatmaster

Dormant account
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Location
South Africa
Devo11 said:
Has the eCOGRA done anything productive for players since its inception?

All I have heard of is a bunch of cases where they take the side of the casino because duh duh duh....they are paid and funded by the casinos.

I'm assuming after this aubit they will find that it was in no way the casinos fault but a group of rogue employees whom have now been dealt with.

When will Microgaming...oh, I mean eCOGRA come out with this decision?
Can you do me a favor and point me to those posts or hard evidence where they actually sided with casinos against players?

eCOGRA is not just Microgaming,... sigh... Why do I bother?

Look eCOGRA as far as I know has done allot for players thus far. Them actually acting on the JF issue is proof of this. The way they are acting very are serious. PWC are indipendent and one of the most trusted in their industry. I certainly would like some hard proof of anything you posted here. It is clear that you have no understanding of how serious this step is for JF, I assure you it is pretty serious, almost a case of be carefull of what you ask for...
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Chatmaster said:
Can you do me a favor and point me to those posts or hard evidence where they actually sided with casinos against players?
Certainly.

CON: site-scrapping. No action.

CON: player a "bonus abuser": sided with casino, though casino was unquestonably in the wrong; then player amazingly popped up with a resolution coupled to a NDA. eCOGRA's only public comment was to refuse to revisit the matter because of "undisclosed" reasons.

Bella Vegas: found for the casino - almost no player support for this action. Asked Bryan Bailey when he was going to de-rogue them at the GIGSE!!

Lake Palace (old news): found for casino. Public outcry. Found for player.

Rather, chatmaster: hard evidence where they actually sided with players against casinos, without a public outcry first: can you find it? An example?

Webzcas said:
I really have had enough of posting here whereby I only seem to bash casinos and gambling operations.
Why?? Are your postings unjustified? Unfair?
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Devo11 said:
All I have heard of is a bunch of cases where they take the side of the casino because duh duh duh....they are paid and funded by the casinos...
Well, that is lame as hell. They side with the casino when the casino is in the right. And in most cases (about 99% of the time) eCOGRA has made the right decision.

I deal with complaints daily (except when I am at the beach), and these are for any xyz casino. It's no cake walk trying to figure out what's up with the player and/or the casino, but I do my damnedest to make the right decision. Even though casinos pay for advertising here, it makes no difference to me when the PAB is dealt with. Casinos have been dropped from this site - and this past year I've removed two major groups from Casinomeister. I'm not motivated by money - and most everyone knows this.

And this can be said for the folks at eCOGRA. They have set a very high standard for their casinos to meet, and more power to them. No one said these standards are perfect - just like my standards, but dammit - it's groups like eCOGRA that are getting this industry on the right track.

-15 rep points for making such a lame-ass comment.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
caruso said:
...Bella Vegas: found for the casino - almost no player support for this action. Asked Bryan Bailey when he was going to de-rogue them at the GIGSE!!
Lest we forget, I agreed with eCOGRA's decision, but I just felt that the casino should have done something to ensure player trust - that it wasn't because of the money. That player should never have been paid, and most people felt the same way.

Andrew merely asked me when they might be removed at the GIGSE just for conversation's sake. It's an interesting thing to talk about.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
And while we're at it Caruso, if you are so anti-eCOGRA why do you promote eCOGRA approved casinos at Hundredpercentgambling.com? You list Trident and Spin Palace. Both are eCOGRA casinos (Trident was the first torchbearer BTW)

Why are you an affiliate of these two groups? Or am I mistaken somewhere?
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
caruso said:
...Bella Vegas: found for the casino - almost no player support for this action. Asked Bryan Bailey when he was going to de-rogue them at the GIGSE!!
This is written by you:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Bella Vegas: the underage gambling issue

This relates to the matter discussed at length at the WinnerOnline forum in the Bella Vegas discussion, and about which Andrew and I exchanged emails.

Summary: Underage player deposited 17 times and cashed out three times; upon request of a substantial cash out - £13,000 GBP - she was investigated and found to be underage according to the jurisdiction she resides in, Nevada; eCOGRA, taking council from G4, recommended that the casino not pay her because of her underage status, as amongst other things this would open a whole can of worms and establish a dangerous precedent.


I don't dispute that Andrew made the "right" call on the above basis; however, my interest in re-raising this matter heads up between us was to ask if it would not have been, or yet be, possible to find a compromise that would NOT have so wholly disadvantaged the girl? Not to pay anything as a "debt" or "winnings", but to find a compromise solution, a goodwill gesture or something along these lines? There was an opportunity for quite a bit of kudos for all parties involved - could a solution not have been found?


The casino had the opportunity to make a goodwill gesture - I had suggested that the donate her winnings to a charity of her choice. That is beyond eCOGRA's scope of things. That's casino business.
 

Webzcas

Winter is Coming!
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Location
Block S25, South Stand, Ashton Gate, BS3
Casinomeister said:
And while we're at it Caruso, if you are so anti-eCOGRA why do you promote eCOGRA approved casinos at Hundredpercentgambling.com? You list Trident and Spin Palace. Both are eCOGRA casinos (Trident was the first torchbearer BTW)

Why are you an affiliate of these two groups? Or am I mistaken somewhere?
As it is the World Cup, I have a comment to make on CM's post.

He Shoots. He Scores

:lolup:
 

soflat

Experienced Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Location
Florida
I am almost satisified with Jackpot Factory's explanation. In the end they took responsibility for it and didn't shift blame to someone else.

As for eCogra, I am neutral. So far I am shocked that they sided with Belle Rock without giving the player any explanation. Waiting for Casinomeister to get to the bottom of this one and see if eCogra acted properly.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
Concerning Trident Lounge, at WOL you said:

They state 1) that restricted gameplay does not fulfill the terms, but NOT that by default play on such games voids winnings, and 2) that winnings MAY be voided, but only at the casino's discretion.

This is clearly an honest, unfortunate mistake. If she'd deposited just one day earlier there'd have been no problem. The casino has at its discretion the ability to take a rational, fair look at the situation and make an exception based on the facts of the individual case. Even if they DIDN'T, an honest casino should grant a period of grace of maybe up to a week...at least a few days...before draconian implementation of big rule changes.

Not so with the Trident group.

As a result of an honest mistake, the player is out the equivalent of $15,500 USD. This is a top-ranked Microgaming casino.

This is unacceptable. I absolutely support players having the responsibility to check terms before playing, but this is a clear case for the casino excercising its stated "discretion" and paying the player. Under what circumstances would they excercise said "discretion" if not here?

Trident are the number one Microgaming outfit on my blog / site - see my "Microgaming blackjack" page.

They will be gone by the end of the week if they don't reverse this decision.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Funny, you still list Trident and most of their properties at hundredpercentgambling.com.

As an affiliate, don't you feel that you should make contact with your affiliate manager to see if there is any more to this than meets the eye? Or are you just taking the player's word for what it is?

Now you've made me derail a thread in my own forum.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
I have bitten my tongue at these negative attacks on eCOGRA for long enough, so here goes:

The (very old) Lake Palace affair. Caruso's version above is biased toward his own as usual jaundiced view of the subject.

The real facts:

eCOGRA FGA mistakenly found against the player (it was a bonus dispute) She was wrong - and out of something like 900 cases in the past three years that does not often happen.

When it does happen what would the players rather have - a review process or stubborn insistence on sticking with the original decision?

There was the customary furore and negative speculation on the fora but no-one did anything more than shout about it until one guy took the time to assemble a courteous and businesslike counter-argument to the FGA's finding and sent it to eCOGRA's CEO, who is probably one of the most accessible executives in the industry when it comes to player hassles - try him for yourself sometime.

The CEO ordered a review of the case, showing imo a reasonable and open minded approach to the issue. The review reversed the FGA's decision in favour of the player.

What sort of recognition did eCOGRA receive for this preparedness to reverse itself in the interests of fairness? Well, Caruso has been screaming about it as a bad thing ever since (it must be all of two or more years back now.) And the player who benefitted from the review is wont to post that it was only because there was a public outcry that eCOGRA acted.

Bull. I was there and I saw the posts, which are probably still in the archives.

So much for balance and truth.

The truth is that there are a number of individuals (some of whom are affiliates who seem to want eCOGRA to become the general online gaming policeman, which is not it's remit or intention) who have consistently made a point of attacking eCOGRA every time the name appears in what seems to be a totally counter-productive attempt to bring it down. They will not succeed.

This thread and countless others are an example of how threads about specific company failures regularly turn into uninformed or malicious eCOGRA bashing sessions in the absence of comment or argument from the companies involved. Sometimes the original thrust of the thread is completely submerged in yet another negative eCOGRA debate.

In pursuing its player-focused strategies, eCOGRA has suggested to complaining affiliates on the 888.com issue that they should form their own standards and regulatory association to fight their corner in industry issues, but thus far there has been little sign of this taking place. Such a body could have enormous business clout and influence on the casinos imo if it was cohesive and well put together with sufficient funding.

I don't believe the player community would be served by the demise of eCOGRA, but that's just my opinion.

Other critics may have lost a case on an eCOGRA complaint and bear a grudge as a consequence. And there are others who have been misled or are insufficiently informed but join the mud-slinging anyway.

Where there is a genuine beef, I have found that the eCOGRA people are always willing to listen and respond.

I can only suggest to the average, fair-minded player that you visit the site for yourself, check it out and if necessary ask your own questions of the London-based staff before forming an opinion.

The fact that detractors and complainants alike turn to eCOGRA when they hit hassles tells me that it continues to have credibility.
 

jetset

RIP Brian
CAG
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
Location
Earth
Here's another one.

Caruso says: "CON: player a "bonus abuser": sided with casino, though casino was unquestonably in the wrong; then player amazingly popped up with a resolution coupled to a NDA. eCOGRA's only public comment was to refuse to revisit the matter because of "undisclosed" reasons"

The facts:

Player submitted a complaint which eCOGRA took up with the casino. Based on the casino's detailed and documented information the FGA ruled against the player.

Subsequently the casino decided for reasons of its own to settle with the player. That could have been a goodwill issue or other commercial consideration at the discretion of management - who knows because it was a unilateral decision by the casino in which eCOGRA was not consulted and played no part.

Now it is being used to beat up on eCOGRA.

BTW as far as I am aware Caruso's final sentence is not true - I saw no such "public comment."
 

AussieDave

Banned User
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Location
Australia
Jetset,

As a matter of interest which seems as fitting a time as any, I'm interested in clearing up a rumour.

Have you at any stage been a consultant for eCogra or currently retained as a consultant for eCogra?


Cheers
 

dominique

Dormant account
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Location
The Boonies
It is funny how some people manage to turn everything into a thing about eCOGRA.

We have the same at CAP now.

eCOGRA doesn't even have anything to do with webmasters.
 

AussieDave

Banned User
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Location
Australia
Dominique,

unless your jetset in drag :eek:

The question was asked of jetset not you.

Personally I don't think red lighting me serves any other purpose apart from taking a cheap shot.

Though under the guise of your intended mark, in this case, safety in numbers prevails.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada
Trezz said:
The question was asked of jetset not you.
But Trezz, what's the relevance of the question? This thread isn't about eCOGRA per se, nor is it about Jetset, nor is it about 888. It's about Jackpot Factory, and whatever action eCOGRA takes in regards to them. And what does red lighting mean? I'm not sure I understand that comment, unless you meant that it highlighted your other username at CAP, and I didn't figure that was a big secret, was it?

Bryan, this is all your fault, you're the one who started this derailment. :D
 

caruso

Banned User - repetitive violations of 1.6 - troll
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
England
Webzcas said:
As it is the World Cup, I have a comment to make on CM's post.

He Shoots. He Scores

:lolup:
YAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

(Thanks for the plug, Bryan.)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top