eCOGRA MG Audits

[Pinababy69]

This is another inaccurate post that keeps popping up. I am guessing that some people confuse the terms "asked for free advice" with "consulting".

Andrew Beveridge has asked me for advice on a number of occasions, and I believe that the eCOGRA website at one time mentioned that they consulted with me. This does not necessarily make me a "consultant" - one who is paid to consult. eCOGRA has never paid me a dime for any advice I have given them.

eCOGRA is not perfect. Neither is Casinomeister, the UK Gaming Commission, Disneyland or your power company. When things are going fine - it's great. But if there are errors of judgement or when mistakes are made - it's "bring out the spikey long nails - it's hammer time!"

Personally, I don't mind my policies or decisions being questioned, it keeps things in balance; perhaps I don't see 100% of the picture. When arguments are tactful, presented with logic and/or backed-up evidence, it makes it easier to keep things within an objective viewpoint.

The bottom line is I welcome debate and argument - just as long as members are fair to one another, and to the subject they are debating.

It makes perfect sense to me Bryan that you would liaise with eCOGRA on occasion. I appreciate you clearing up the matter of whether or not you were compensated...as honestly, I wasn't sure of that myself. Having lines of communication stay open between various factions of people involved in this industry can only be a good thing, and should be encouraged.

In regards to the forum, yes I do think you are fair. No, I don't agree with you on everything...but I've never seen you publicly flay me for having a different opinion, or for speaking my mind. I completely respect you for that.

Personally, I think threads like this are outstanding, and would like to see more "meat and potatoes" on the forum, which is what this is to me. I don't want to see it turn into an argument, or slinging match....but civilized debate is such a wonderful thing. It provides knowledge, and an exchange of views that can prove to be beneficial to everyone involved.

The 'consultations' with eCOGRA that involved both myself, Casinomeister and a number of other well known posters on this forum who have well over a decade of experience in this industry were unpaid.

That interest is maintained, with eCOGRA's CEO contacting myself and others from time to time on issues on which he seeks an opinion or a perspective...and I know from this forum that Bryan continues to liaise - for the players' benefit - with the eCOGRA Fair Gaming Advocate.

I think those are positives.

I prefer to respond to thoughtful posts that take a balanced view such as that of Pinababy, where she makes some valid critical points highlighting times when eCOGRA has stumbled as well as its positive contributions.

I'm not in possession of the background to those claimed shortcomings - I know no more than the press statements that have been issued by the various parties involved, or some of those posting their facts, speculation and assumptions here and elsewhere - so I will not attempt to guess why or how these occurred and the degree of culpability. Or what has been done to ensure there is no recurrence.

Again - I suggest those questions be addressed to eCOGRA itself, and I urge Trezz to do so intead of demeaning his 'jimmied software' and other arguments by personal insults. The same applies to any other interested party demanding answers - get them from the horse's mouth yourself - eCOGRA is responsive, I have found.

As one of those whom eCOGRA consults with on occasion, I can certainly back up what both CM and Jetset have said - being asked for advice is not the same as consulting for pay.

Funnily enough, I end up arguing with both Andrew and Tex as often as I agree with them - but we all understand that in the end we are trying to reach the same objective of fairness to the gambling community.

Ted, you disagreed with them? Say it ain't so!!

In response to both of your posts...again, thanks for clarifying the consultant issue. Spear, I never believed that you were a paid consultant. I just assumed you were someone who had an opinion, and voiced it at every available opportunity, lol.

Jetset, I DID believe that had a paid position with eCOGRA. My mistake for assuming something that I wasn't entirely sure of.

As I responded to Bryan, same thing with both of you. It makes perfect sense to me that all three of you would be asked for advice/opinions on the industry in general, and most especially on player issues. I honestly don't see how this is a bad thing. But again, a perfect example of why threads like this are great. A couple of misconceptions have been cleared up (at least in my mind) and maybe we can hash out a few more things before we're done.

You know what would be really cool? If some of you would present some of your questions directly to eCOGRA. I am not a spokesperson for their organization just as they are not a spokesperson for mine. Got a question? go ask them and report your findings here.

I completely agree with you Bryan (see, it happens).

During that whole JPF media campaign thing, I emailed back and forth every single day with Andrew, for probably two weeks or more. He answered every single email I sent....and while he never asked me for advice, he did ask my opinion of things from a "player perspective". Again, to me, that shows a willingness to listen.

The reason I mention this is because over the last two weeks I have been on one of my rants about people "getting involved" and not just sitting back and accepting things. Complacency. So rather than just bitch and moan, why not do exactly what Bryan has suggested? I chose to become involved in the JPF thing, and I like to think that I contributed in some small way. I'm nothing more than a player, and there's no reason that any and all of you can't do the same thing, if you so choose.

Myself, I never have asked eCOGRA/Andrew about the Interwetten, Casino Action or reputable portal sites issues.....as they all took place when I was taking a break from things. But now that it's all been brought up again, maybe asking for some answers should be something I do, for myself at least.

If I'm going to write to them anyway, I'd be more than willing to include any questions/concerns any of you might have. No guarantees that answers will be forthcoming, but we won't know until we try. So if anyone would like to take me up on the offer, post any questions in this thread or PM me. I'll compose an email by the end of the week. Try to keep it civil, and as brief as possible. It's worth a shot. A few years back, Caruso actually got Andrew Beveridge to sit down and conducted an interview with him. That couldn't have been an easy thing to do..if any of you know Caruso, you know that his style makes mine look mild in comparison. But I respect him as well, even if we don't agree on "technique", lol.

Bryan, have you ever asked eCOGRA to have a Representative here at the forum? And if so, what was their response?

I would think that since "Casinomeister" is one of the most widely known "Casino Watchdog & Player Advocate" sites on the internet that they would surely want to be a part of that community especially since they also state that they are "specifically overseeing fair gaming, player protection and responsible operator conduct" and the fact that they did and do consult with you.

On another note, have you yourself asked them any of those tough questions that I posted above regarding those issues that Pina brought attention too? ...just curious

Sure, of course the rest of us can ask eCOGRA these questions directly but are you guys also not concerned over those same issues?

A very good thought Rob, about having a rep here. It would be a time consuming endeavour though for whoever undertook it. And then we have to worry if everyone could remain civil enough to keep it worthwhile.

I also would like to know how Bryan, Jet and Ted feel about the issues I brought up specifically. But I think they've all somewhat answered to the point of saying they don't necessarily agree with things that eCOGRA have done, but that it's not up to them to dictate policy, or be a spokesperson for them. But if they'd care to add any more thoughts, that would be great.

Rob, I was going to quote your first post in this thread, but it was toooo long.

I understand what you're saying about your own playing experiences, and it's never been my intention to discount anyone else's opinions. Just as I tell others to ignore me if they don't like what I have to say....then perhaps I should take my own advice, and just not read those posts that I so strongly disagree with. I think this is one of those things where we will never come to an agreement, or have the same opinion....so we will have to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

I am keeping an open mind....and I think you know that about me. I just need some concrete proof before I can ever yell rigged. But...you make a very valid point when you bring up Absolute, and let's not forget English Harbour. Yes, software absolutely can be manipulated, of that I have no doubt. The possibility is always there, and I'd be a fool to believe otherwise. However, without evidence to back it up...I'm just not buying into the argument that it's being done on a regular basis. EH and Absolute were extreme cases, that were backed up with STATISTICAL evidence that couldn't be discounted. I'll leave that whole subject at that.

Nope. However, I do have an opinion of weighting... it's perfectly normal for slot symbols to be weighted It's done in land-based casinos and it's done in online casinos. And in any case, this is not an area that eCOGRA concerns themselves with - this is an area which is handled directly by the software manufacturers with companies such as Technical Systems Testing (TST) which verify that the systems meet approved standards. I imagine that such verification would be a requirement and/or pre-requisite for becoming an eCOGRA-approved software provider, but it is something that eCOGRA itself has nothing to do with.

I do not, however, believe that these weightings change at any MGS or Playtech casino, nor do I believe that the operator has any control over the symbol weightings.

THAT is a very interesting statement Spear. Is that strictly an opinion? Or...is it a statement based on some knowledge that the rest of us aren't privy to? Just curious.

I do agree on the part about not believing the operators themselves have any control....IF it does happen, I believe it happens on the software provider level.

 

[bb28]

Trezz has brought up some great discussion points and it's something that does need to be discussed, even better would be to have the facts from the horses mouth itself up for discussion.
It's just the nature of us here at CM to be skeptical of any entity, especially one that deals with issues such as fairness and ethics. These questions come from the personal experience of many of those who are regular contributers and feel maybe they have been cheated by those that we are told that it's OK to trust and as for the rest of us, well it just the smart thing to do to not take everything that is printed or said at face value. We are a little jaded and yes we have every right to be that way, especially when it concerns $$$$.

 

[Rusty]

Nope. However, I do have an opinion of weighting... it's perfectly normal for slot symbols to be weighted It's done in land-based casinos and it's done in online casinos. And in any case, this is not an area that eCOGRA concerns themselves with - this is an area which is handled directly by the software manufacturers with companies such as Technical Systems Testing (TST) which verify that the systems meet approved standards. I imagine that such verification would be a requirement and/or pre-requisite for becoming an eCOGRA-approved software provider, but it is something that eCOGRA itself has nothing to do with.

I do not, however, believe that these weightings change at any MGS or Playtech casino, nor do I believe that the operator has any control over the symbol weightings.

edit -> I did find this in the Old / Expired Link, which sort of covers the issue...





CPUs do not get modified by signal code. Various control chips may, however. And in Vegas, the regulations stipulate that a Gaming Control Board representative must be present when this sort of modification is made.

Thanks for the link.

It is perfectly normal for 3 Reel slot symbols to be weighted and it is accepted practice, see my MG are you taking the... thread but are you saying all MGS 5 reel slots are weighted?

If so why do you consider this weighting exists as the return of these slots is supposed to be defined only by the natural probability of outcome for each winning combination within a full cycle of all possible outcomes and any adjustments made through the paytable.
In essence the return is hardwired into the slot by its design.
That is what we are led to believe because as soon as it is public admitted that these slots are weighted the question will be,
"for what reason?"

Of course my position is very clear, not only are these slots weighted but the weighting is adjustable, whether that be through changes to the algorithms (translation from RNG to slot outcome) or dynamic changes to the reel bands.
I do not have to state how this practice can be unfair to the player or open to abuse.

Now I do not wish to derail this thread but that is relevant because if ecogra is to be seen as effective and credible in its claims then such practices as dynamic weighting where they exist should be made known to the player or better still disallowed under ecogra regulations.
Are either of those the case?

Certainly slots are promoted as completely random and all outcomes having an equal probability of outcome at all times but dynamic weighting can still be used and that statement remain true, even if we allow oursleves to believe such a statement in the First place.
All we need do is alter the amount of outcomes to change the return (dynamic weighting) yet still allow all those outcomes an equal probability of outcome. (ex we just have many more losing combos to lower the return)

This information is not provided to player.
So do ecogras guidelines disallow weighting?

First of all lets look at the heading for the ecogra standards.
eCOGRA GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRACTICES (eGAP)
Hardly a forceful statement of intent is it?

It goes on to explain;
This document is intended primarily, as a guideline, to define and communicate the requirements to which potential eCOGRA seal holders must comply. In addition, this document will be used as a guideline by the eCOGRA Compliance Department, to establish the testing requirements that will be applicable to a software provider, the operator or a service provider within the industry.

It is full of weak or ambiguous terms such as "SUGGESTED PRACTICES:" and "whichever methods appropriate" -although there are some useful guidelines in there also-but they are just guidelines or minimum requirements.

As Bryan says no system is perfect-absolutely-but if you are going to make statements such as,
eCOGRA is based on the achievement of the objectives of player protection, fair gaming and responsible conduct by operators
Is it not unreasonable for the player to expect them to back it up with some pretty strong regulation rather than the "Play nicely please" approach?

As I have already said they have helped players who may not have had anywhere else to turn if they were not in existence-good-but it is healthy to hold them accountable and to understand that they are not a regulatory body as such.

I know Bryan advocates this approach.

 

[jetset]

If this is the case, then it must be an awfully expensive diversion into "marketing" that clearly has not worked with some of you!

This sort of thread surfaces from time to time with the same arguments for and against the way that eCOGRA does things and the times it has not met some of the expectations of the posters. It's very repetitive with the same folks posting the same sort of stuff, indicating that opinions have not been swayed by either side.

It does not appear that this latest example will be any different, but once again both sides of the argument have been presented and that is important where an individual or an organisation is initially presented in a negative light with little substantiated information.

I've always found the eCOGRA.org site quite informative on most questions, or, as I have said before, the senior staff like Rees and Beveridge are usually prepared to communicate. So present your questions and concerns direct and in a courteous and professional manner and see what they have to say, as Bryan suggests.

I don't see eCOGRA folding its cards anytime soon, because there is clearly a need and significant support for what it is doing and how it is doing it - present company perhaps excepted .

Speaking for myself, I am glad that this organisation is likely to be around for the forseeable future no matter what happens in the USA or for that matter elsewhere in a legislative sense.

If anything that will strengthen the need for what eCOGRA has to offer - the discipline of an impartial set of well considered operational standards and a professionally qualified inspection and monitoring staff that can take an operator to better levels of performance and respect for the player.

And, of course, a service that has assisted literally thousands of players to resolve disputes with online casinos in the 888, Bwin and Microgaming powered ranges over the past five years.

 

[Pinababy69]

It's very repetitive with the same folks posting the same sort of stuff, indicating that opinions have not been swayed by either side.

You sound pissed off Jetset.

I do have to say though, that statement I quoted is 100% on the money. It is for the most part, the same posters who were posting the exact same things a few years ago, who are all posting in this thread. And I include myself in that group. Nothing has changed, insofar as people's views go. What an astute observation, and it was enlightening for me to realize that my own opinion hasn't really changed in the last few years.

 

[rikkerbuddy]

conflict a bad thing?

ecogra is a very worthwhile organization - I have personal experience on the player compliant process. I was treated well after the casino did the opposite.



The out come was in my favor and for good reason

I do see a conflict of interests - does anyone know what other industry leaders are doing this? Do they have other industry programs on the board?

This industry is still very young and I am sure that ecogra will evolve. Right now it's the best option. But we should always be able to ask questions but lets find solutions

We seem to have Two arguments here.

Is ecogra a worthwhile organization?

Is there a conflict of interests within the organization?

I would have to say Yes and no to the first question.

 

[RobWin]

Bryan, this thread and this topic would be a good subject/theme for your next video. Maybe even have a guest appearance by Tex herself for a Casinomeister "Exclusive" interview. Maybe even ask her to opine on some of the questions and issues that have been brought up here in this thread, unrehearsed of course. It would definitely get you some good ratings on YouTube and also in the player community as a whole. Furthermore, it could go on to help bring more confidence to the player community regarding eCOGRA's transparency and impartiality role that they are and will be playing in the future of this industry.

 

[Tengil]

As I previously stated I appreciate the work that Tex Reese has done but otherwise I consider eCOGRA to be worthless and that wont change. They are MG/888 pimps IMO trying to give some credibility to mainly MG casinos. Ok, I hold them in higher regards than APCW but that aint much.

At player protection they failed miserably. Arctic Pokers (the only TUSK skin that had an eCOGRA seal) seal was withdrawn one week before they shut down. Didnt they check them out at all?

Why was Interwetten and Lucky Ace awarded a seal? Lucky Ace is easy as they are related to 888.com.

Why do they have a reputable portal list? Many of them are far away from reputable. The point in having such a list?

And a direct quote from their site:
"eCOGRA, a non-profit organization, is the independent standards authority of the online gaming industry, specifically overseeing fair gaming, player protection and responsible operator conduct. The function that eCOGRA performs protects those who engage in online gaming where it is lawful."

Independent? yeah sure.
What standard authority? MGs standards? I have seen their standard in the TUSK scam.

I could go on forever but just wanted to present my view which I know is shared by many (similar views).

 

[sublime9]

just my own experience from many MG disputes I filed with Tex over the years, they only rule for the player when its an obvious no dispute case in favor of the player and the casino really messed up, anything that would be even gray area they will automatically rule in favor of the casino.

 

[Casinomeister]

just my own experience from many MG disputes I filed with Tex over the years, they only rule for the player when its an obvious no dispute case in favor of the player and the casino really messed up, anything that would be even gray area they will automatically rule in favor of the casino.

I feel that you've made a rather unfair comment. She rules in favor of the player when the player is in the right and the casino is wrong. She rules in favor of the casino when the casino is right and the player is wrong.

If you don't have evidence to back up these claims, then don't blurt it out. And if you do have this sort of evidence, please start a new thread. This one is topic heavy enough.

Many MG disputes? What are you doing out there? Some people have been playing for years with nary a one.

 

[AussieDave]

This sort of thread surfaces from time to time with the same arguments for and against the way that eCOGRA does things and the times it has not met some of the expectations of the posters. It's very repetitive with the same folks posting the same sort of stuff, indicating that opinions have not been swayed by either side.

IMHO this is a derogative comment "This sort of thread".

Have you ever entertained the thought that "This sort of thread" keeps rearing its head because people who post about eCOGRA and their CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues feel their views are not being validated.

I've certainly seen this topic get set on by those who may have a vested interest(s) in a positive outcome.

Reiterating...jetset I'm an MG casino player. I'm also an affiliate who promotes MG casino properties (do you?)

Unlike some affiliates, making a buck for me is not the B end all of everything.


Cheers
T

 

[spearmaster]

Have you ever entertained the thought that "This sort of thread" keeps rearing its head because people who post about eCOGRA and their CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues feel their views are not being validated.

The basis for your claim of conflict of interest (on the basis of which directors make decisions) has already been shown to be inaccurate.

Did you have something else to base this statement on?

 

[Casinomeister]

IMHO this is a derogative comment "This sort of thread".

I think "this sort of thread" pertains to the fact that this thread was initiated with half-truths and false statements which gives a misleading impression eCOGRA. It has happened many times in this forum amongst others.

• eCOGRA was founded on start up money from Microgaming.
• Non Executive Board Directors hold the deciding vote.
• Roger Raatgever (CEO) of Microgaming was an Non Executive Board Director.
• Chris Hobbs (Head of Corporate Affairs Microgaming Software Systems) has now replaced Roger Raatgever is his role.

IMHO these justify anyone's concerns in regard to conflict of interest issues between Microgaming and eCOGRA.

Of course the shills will tell you otherwise

The shill comment was "derogatory" in nature IMO - and I should have just locked the thread back then since we'd never have an honest and fair discussion about this entity. You've already labeled anyone who doesn't dance to your drum beat a shill. WTF?

How is that giving anyone in this forum respect for their opinions? And who are you anyway to label ANYONE a shill? Leave that up to the moderators who can check IP and email addresses.

If you want to have a discussion about something, then by all means have it. But keep the facts as facts and don't make unfounded comments that can be misleading. Thank you.

 

[Tengil]

As we are on the eCOGRA subject can anyone tell me what positive they have brought to this industry apart from Tex Reese?

 

[AussieDave]

I think "this sort of thread" pertains to the fact that this thread was initiated with half-truths and false statements which gives a misleading impression eCOGRA. It has happened many times in this forum amongst others.

What was misleading?

• MGS, 888.com & Bwin injected the start up funds for eCOGRA?
• MGS, 888.com & Bwin all hold non-executive director positions at eCOGRA?
• Non-executive director votes overrule the Executive Board of eCOGRA?

Expired Image

Has eCOGRA got its facts wrong?
IMO it's added the word "Independent" into the above statement to bamboozle people. Is eCOGRA playing semantics?

The only Independent Directors (view below screen cap) have been appointed by eCOGRA.

Expired Image

The Independent Directors have little or no power because the non-executive directors (MGS, 888.com & Bwin) can over-rule the Independent Directors of eCOGRA .

In eCOGRA's own words "will always have control over board decisions".

Blow me down if that's not another CONFLICT OF INTEREST right there!


If however you referring to me saying you were a PAID CONSULTANT for eCOGRA...Yeah sorry about that, seems I got some wrong information.

Still I was 1/2 right hey

Cheers
T

 

[spearmaster]

I repeat again - you've got it backwards.

The non-executive independent directors are Messrs Henbrey, Hirst, Galston and Catania. There are four of them - and hence have control over the board.

The only executive member of the board is Andrew Beveridge.

Speaking of the non-executive independent directors...

* Michael Hirst, OBE, is the chairman of eCOGRA as well as a non-executive director.
* Bill Galston, OBE, is the former chief inspector for the Gaming Board of Great Britain.
* Frank Catania is one of the pioneers of the online gaming industry with respect to jurisdictions and the first president of the International Masters of Gaming Law.
* Bill Henbrey is a chartered accountant with extensive experience in betting & gaming.

Notwithstanding the fact that all of these directors are distinguished experts in the gaming industry, two of them are OBEs - not exactly something you can pick up in a nickel and dime store.

It can be argued that each of them individually and collectively have a lot more to lose in terms of reputation than any or all of the accredited operators. It is thus absurd to even think that the three non-executive directors from the gaming companies will ever have control over these gentlemen.

 

[AussieDave]

I repeat again - you've got it backwards

Unless we're viewing two different web site's, then eCOGRA has it backwards, not me!

Expired Image

It's there in black and white Mate!

Group A
Non Executive Directors:
John Anderson - 888.com
Chris Hobbs - MGS
Oliver Eckel - Bwin

Group B
Independent Directors:
BILL HENBREY
MICHAEL HIRST
BILL GALSTON
FRANK CATANIA


"non-executive independent directors"

By looking at the above the non executive directors are Group A.

The independent directors are from Group B.

Unless eCOGRA has added the word "Independent" where it shouldn't be, the way I read it is that the NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS (Group A) hold the final vote.

I'm only reading what's on the page Mate!


Cheers
T

 

[Rusty]

I repeat again - you've got it backwards.

The non-executive independent directors are Messrs Henbrey, Hirst, Galston and Catania. There are four of them - and hence have control over the board.

The only executive member of the board is Andrew Beveridge.

Speaking of the non-executive independent directors...

* Michael Hirst, OBE, is the chairman of eCOGRA as well as a non-executive director.
* Bill Galston, OBE, is the former chief inspector for the Gaming Board of Great Britain.
* Frank Catania is one of the pioneers of the online gaming industry with respect to jurisdictions and the first president of the International Masters of Gaming Law.
* Bill Henbrey is a chartered accountant with extensive experience in betting & gaming.

Notwithstanding the fact that all of these directors are distinguished experts in the gaming industry, two of them are OBEs - not exactly something you can pick up in a nickel and dime store.

It can be argued that each of them individually and collectively have a lot more to lose in terms of reputation than any or all of the accredited operators. It is thus absurd to even think that the three non-executive directors from the gaming companies will ever have control over these gentlemen.

Oh come on, OBE indeed.
Jeffrey Archer, Lester Piggot, Jack Lyons etc etc all sleezy characters and all made peers, it says nothing about Ones integrity.
There are people devoting their lives to helping others without a moments recognition so let's not get all snooty about OBE's that only go to the privilaged.

Of course that does not mean these people do not have integrity, I have no reason to doubt them and I respect the positions they have attained, but I am not going to assume they are upstanding pillars of society based on an OBE.

OK now that is off my chest thanks for the information.

Do we know who they were paid by for the privilage of their directorships?
Who pays for their continued role in ecogra?
How involved are they in the decision making process on a case by case basis?

If those can be answered to my satisfaction I personally would feel more assured there is no conflict of interest.
So far ecogra looks pretty much the archetypal quango but I could be pursuaded otherwise-to a point .

 

[spearmaster]

You are not reading it right.

I repeat: the only Executive Director is Andrew Beveridge.

All other directors are Non-Executive.

The ones shown as Independent Directors are Non-Executive Independent Directors.

The ones shown as Non-Executive Directors are obviously associated with the software providers.

The phrase "Non-Executive Independent Directors" refers to the non-executive directors who are NOT associated with the software providers. There are four of them. There are only three that are associated with software providers.

That should be plainly clear. If you're going to play on the semantics of what you see in that pulldown, that's up to you - but the claim you are making is absolutely incorrect.

I would of course advise eCOGRA to add the words "Non-Executive" in front of "Independent Directors" on the pulldown - but it should still be self-explanatory nevertheless.

 

[spearmaster]

Oh come on, OBE indeed.
Jeffrey Archer, Lester Piggot, Jack Lyons etc etc all sleezy characters and all made peers, it says nothing about Ones integrity.

Haha.

I think, on the balance of things, there are many more OBEs with honourable records and integrity than those without, some of which you have named. You may or may not assume they are upstanding pillars of society - and you're entitled to that opinion - but again they are the ones putting their reputation on the line and they certainly have more to lose than some of those you've named above who have since disgraced themselves.

Do we know who they were paid by for the privilage of their directorships?
Who pays for their continued role in ecogra?

I'm assuming these two questions are basically same question - and needless to say eCOGRA should be paying the director's honorariums.

How involved are they in the decision making process on a case by case basis?

The answer to that will be better explained by eCOGRA, but the fact that they are non-executive directors should speak to this - case by case decisions would be handled by the eCOGRA team led by the executive director, which is Andrew Beveridge, and policy and direction decisions would be handled by the board.

It's a reasonable certainty that the independent directors do not involve themselves with individual cases except where it has an effect on policy.

 

[Tengil]

As we are on the eCOGRA subject can anyone tell me what positive they have brought to this industry apart from Tex Reese?

I think that the silence speeks for itself.

 

[spearmaster]

I think that the silence speeks for itself.

Anything constructive to say?

I'll just add one point - eCOGRA's eGAP outlines some very stringent standards by which its members must abide.

For the rest - I suggest you visit www.ecogra.org rather than make flippant comments.

 

[Tengil]

Anything constructive to say?

I'll just add one point - eCOGRA's eGAP outlines some very stringent standards by which its members must abide.

For the rest - I suggest you visit www.ecogra.org rather than make flippant comments.

I know their eGAP and the standards arent that stringent.
Again look at their approved sites and their past.

Lucky Ace
Interwetten
Grand Prive (Bella Vegas 2005)
Fortune Lounge with some of the worst FU clauses
TUSK (past issue)
Casino Rewards and the constant spamming

So the eGAP hasnt provided anything worthwile IMO

 

[Rusty]

Thanks Spearmaster.
Surely this whole conflict of interests issue though is still valid if ecogra is funded by the software companies/casinos and the names that lend it some credibility are in turn paid by ecogra?

Or have I got something wrong in the loop?

Just because there is a potential conflict of interest it does not mean that One exists of course but obviously the potential is there, particularly in the more sensitive (sensational?) cases.

I have absolutely no problem with ecogra as long as they do not promote themselves a proper regulatory body, unless of course they become One but that would require much more transparency about funding and making the step from issuing guidelines to enforcing regulations and a robust penalty system.
There would of course be legal issues that needed to be resolved but FIFA would be a good example of how an association can be constructed and have very strong legislative powers and control over its members.
FIFA itself is governed by Swiss law.

So in principle I believe ecogra can work and be even better than say UKGC but in its current guise I would much prefer a respected Goverment funded body and my concern is that ecogra have no real incentive to evolve and their existence can only make proper legislation less likely.

ps
but again they are the ones putting their reputation on the line and they certainly have more to lose than some of those you've named above who have since disgraced themselves.

Well that depends on and is balanced by what they have to gain. (Human nature)

 

[Casinomeister]

I think that the silence speeks for itself.

Perhaps the silence is from those who tire of being repetitious. We get it. You and a handful of others feel that eCOGRA is worthless. I and a number of others understand its importance.

How about compile a few questions for eCOGRA that you'd like answered, and send it off to them. And when you receive these answers, you can post them here. Perhaps I'll put together a special FAQ so when the same ol' issues keep popping up, I can direct people into the right direction.