eCOGRA interview at Winneronline


Dormant account
May 30, 2004
LA, California
From an industry perspective, a third-party watchdog - or regulatory - body is altogether a good thing. But would any of the casinos really want it?

If you're a "rogue" casino, you'd obviously NOT want such an agency.

But if you're a decent casino, wouldn't you rather have your integrity serve as a competitive advantage? A regulatory agency would eventually level the playing field, since it would likely restrict or limit rogues. Suddenly, your reputation as a reputable casino isn't much of an advantage since ALL the casinos would also be known as reputable.

As a result, the only benefit of such an agency is to leverage the fact that your casino IS a member, hence implying that the casino HAS integrity. That too is short-lived - either the rogues will be eventually eliminated, leaving only casinos who are members of the agency, or the public will realize that the agency is nothing more than a marketing tool.

Bottom line - the casinos have no real incentive to form a self-regulatory body. It WOULD have to be formed from the outside. Arguably, forums such as this and Winneronline serve such a purpose.


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001
Thanks, Grandmaster - although I find your "....companies will do anything for money" a rather cynical and sweeping comment, I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken to go into what appear to my lay eye to be constructive suggestions on testing.

I think it may be useful to forward your views to PwC through eCOGRA, and I would be happy to do that if you are not yourself prepared to do so?

Users who are viewing this thread