eCOGRA Again

[Devo11]

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]

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]

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]

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?

I really have had enough of posting here whereby I only seem to bash casinos and gambling operations.

Why?? Are your postings unjustified? Unfair?

 

[Webzcas]

Why?? Are your postings unjustified? Unfair?

I believe not. However I am fed up with all the negativity. Never mind, I have backed England to win and win big tonight against the Swedes

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

...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.

 

[The Dude]

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?

 

[The Dude]

...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]

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

 

[soflat]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[Webzcas]

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

Ah the art of Fred Jacking

We could turn this into a world cup thread. Seriously, 5/1 for Owen to score the first goal in tonight's game. Bargain!

 

[jetset]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dominique,

unless your jetset in drag

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]

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.

 

[caruso]

As it is the World Cup, I have a comment to make on CM's post.

He Shoots. He Scores

YAAAAAAAAAAAWN.

(Thanks for the plug, Bryan.)

 

[Vesuvio]

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

It says nothing of the sort, unfortunately. If a casino's refusing to pay a player has little choice but to try everyone available option, however unpromising.

I lost faith in eCOGRA the moment I saw them uphold CON's refusal to pay a player on the basis of a "we can do whatever we like" term. My subsequent personal dealings with them have just confirmed the prognosis.

 

[dominique]

Dominique,

unless your jetset in drag

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.

That was simultaneous posting. Didn't see your post until now.

It was not about you in any way, I was commenting to Jetset.

 

[Pinababy69]

Thanks Bryan! Great idea...now the eCOGRA bashers can bash away in their own thread.

Thought I was losing it, one second I was in one thread...the next, I was somewhere else. Not that unusual for me really.

 

[AussieDave]

While I'm here I may as well state exactly how I feel on the JF topic, 888 and eCogra too. I'd hate for anyone to take me out of context

As far as the JF issue what they did was wrong, it was unethical and eCogra did the right thing in suspending their seal/s.

However, in direct violation of eCogra's eGAP 888.com has done exactly the same thing as JF and far worse things too. But eCogra is playing favouritism to 888.com whilst happily throwing Jackpot Factory to the hyenas.

I hold a major issue with that!

Notably CM has rogued 888.com as well as many other webmasters in the industry. Still eCogra turns a blind eye and refuses to pull the 888 Play It Safe seal.

If it makes people feel better, safer, guarded or whatever to pigeon hole those who don't share or side with your views on eCogra then I really do feel sorry for you.

For those of you who have not viewed my posts over at CAP by all means be my guest (pen name Wager2winUK). I'll even give you the link:
XXXhttp://www.casinoaffiliateprograms.com/bb/showthread.php?t=12192
(remove XXX)

You might discover some canon fodder to shoot at me and give these poor other buggers a rest for a while.

Whilst some of us are laying all cards on the table, I'll go to say that imo too many people in this industry hold too many conflicts of interest and vested interest issues. If you r not sure what that means may I suggest you look it up here:
XXXhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

That extends to eCogra and 888 too. It also involves any webmaster that has a link on eCogra's site.

As Dominique so eloquently stated, yet so misguided, points out:

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

No it promotes their web sites instead.

Fundamentally I view the eCogra model as great for the industry in some aspects, whilst in others severally flawed.

For example what organisation in their right mind would allow those who contributed start up funds (and from rumour still carry eCogra) to holding positions of Directorship that entitle them to over rule Board rulings.

Not to mention the fact that eCogra has shown clear favouritism to 888.com whilst it has shielded it from the outcry of webmaster since early 2005 to have eCogra suspend/remove its seal.

Even blind Freddy will tell you things don't add up here.

If eCogra can put Jackpot Factory thru the wringer as it is doing now, then the same goes for 888.com too. Any diversion from this and their eGAP in connect to 888.com is a direct violation of their eGAP by eCogra.

I expect to be shot down in flames over this post, just like anyone who does not sing praise and or subscribe to the eCogra doctrine in line with the in people's view of this forum. What a sham!

 

[caruso]

Is this the right thread? now I'm confused. Anyway:

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

Thanks for helping with my spring cleaning. I pulled them from the Microgaming blackjack page but forgot to upload the changes - and in the current spirit of plugging me, I might as well plug myself a bit -

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

I'll upload the files after posting here, so they'll be gone.

They'll still be on the "recommended casinos" page, because that will take a bit more work. They'll also still be on the "online casino comps", but that's an easier pull.

I'll let you know when I've cleaned that Trident crap off my site for good, but it won't happen overnight. I'll also post big, fat links to all those pages as evidence.

Bryan, I get the impression you're kind of trying to "expose" me by posting these links. The site is sitting in my profile here -

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/members/

It's also sitting in my WOL profile:

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

It's already been posted a couple of times on the boards. Do you think I'm remotely EMBARRASSED by it?

The only thing I'm currently embarrassed about is forgetting to upload that Microgaming page.

And FTR, the only reason you KNOW about it is because I told you when we met at the ICE. If you're trying to "expose" me here, you might want to think about that. If I were "embarrassed" about the site, I'm not sure this "exposure" would be the most ethical behaviour, do you?

Would you be embarrassed or ashamed to have the kind of quality, player-helpful content I have? Are you trying to put me down at all?

It's actually a pain in the arse the stunts these casinos pull. When Sands Of The Carribean tried to screw me out of that monthly bonus, I had to pull them (did you?). After SciFi downgraded their DWFP game, I had to pull them. I still have to pull Acropolis because of the stunt they pulled with a player recently, but I need ONE Playtech and I'm not really happy with Bet365. I tried to get Main Street on board, but they ignored me - possibly because of the massive sums I took off them a few years back . (So as a sidenote - regarding Playtech: HELP).

My listing criteria are as tough as they get, and tougher than yours: not only do they have to be clean, they have to offer good games and a decent comp programme. Hence, I cannot list 32Red, even though they aren't eCOGRA, because they have no comps and no single deck BJ.

Ah baby, embarrassed I am NOT.

I started that site as a resource to help players find good games and play them well, ie. lose as little as possible to a tiny house edge, and even WIN. And now you're posting as some kind of "expos".

How much more wrong could this be?

Would you like me to post a thread entitled "Caruso's site"? I asked Max permission to post links at WOL, which he gave, so I posted them. I would not spam this site without permission.

I want you to have wiped clean away any ideas you may have along these lines.