eCOGRA MG Audits

[spearmaster]

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

I don't think the eGAP covers spamming... or any marketing issue, for that matter, other than misrepresentation.

FU clauses - some examples would be helpful. But again, eGAP is mainly designed to cover software fairness.

Lucky Ace - I'm assuming this was a spam issue.

GP - player was underage.

Tusk - insolvent. Supposed to be handled by the software provider as far as I know.

Interwetten - not familiar but I expect Pinababy will be elaborating on this further.

In any case - the majority of eCOGRA operations have little or no issues. I don't quite see what you are getting at as far as what eCOGRA has "done" for the industry.

 

[GrandMaster]

I don't think the eGAP covers spamming... or any marketing issue, for that matter, other than misrepresentation.

Advertising and promotions are covered in section 113. As far as spam is concerned, the only requirement is a "genuine unsubscribe or opt-out" facility, which is meaningless. Obeying the law and factual correctness are merely suggestions.

 

[mojo]

I was reading here earlier and I looked around. I still can't find the answer to my question:

Why is the eCOGRA seal still on Grand Prive Casinos? Meanwhile eCOGRA would like to add affiliate programs to their stable.

How can you certify eCOGRA seals for affiliates on one hand and on the other certify Grand Prive Casinos on the other? Casino Grand Bay, Lake Palace, Jupiter Club.. etc etc. Look and you will see eCOGRA seals.

How can the eCOGRA seal be on those casinos?

I suppose I should copy this post and ask them myself. The problem there is that everyone does not have the benefit of the answer. If there is not a problem then it isn't an issue anyway.

I will copy this post and mail for an answer.

Done. I have mailed.

 

[mojo]

I want to just add that applying for an eCOGRA seal for my sites would be the worst thing I could do at this time due to the Grand Prive issue. As an affiliate.

Just my Honest thought.

 

[spearmaster]

Advertising and promotions are covered in section 113. As far as spam is concerned, the only requirement is a "genuine unsubscribe or opt-out" facility, which is meaningless. Obeying the law and factual correctness are merely suggestions.

I think it should be pointed out that eCOGRA's primary role is to set the standards - and it most certainly expects its members to abide by these standards. It is obviously impractical to require eCOGRA to pre-approve any and all emails or marketing projects, and similarly they cannot monitor everything that is put out by all the casinos.

The way to approach an issue like this would be to contact them if you see a breach of any of these conditions. And I'm sure most of us would like to know if issues like these aren't addressed in a timely manner.

 

[Casinomeister]

Admin note: I'm removing the nominations from Trezz's initial post because I feel that it's inappropriate to commend someone when he implies any one who disagrees with him is a shill. Perhaps some members overlooked this comment. I didn't.

 

[retlaw]

Admin note: I'm removing the nominations from Trezz's initial post because I feel that it's inappropriate to commend someone when he implies any one who disagrees with him is a shill. Perhaps some members overlooked this comment. I didn't.

Is it possible to remove the Nominate button,as it is you who decides which posts may be nominated and which not.
What is the next step : delete all posts with which you don't agree?
Freedom of speech

 

[Casinomeister]

Is it possible to remove the Nominate button,as it is you who decides which posts may be nominated and which not.
What is the next step : delete all posts with which you don't agree?
Freedom of speech

Well that's a crock of shit. If you make a post that makes an assumption - and state that anyone who disagrees with you is a shill - then you are insulting the entire membership. That's the point.

This place has always been open for all opinions - but when stating your opinion, give the rest of the forum membership the respect that they deserve.

The "nominations" were removed because it was giving the OP a slap on the back for disrespecting the membership. That's not what the nominations are all about.

 

[Tengil]

I don't think the eGAP covers spamming... or any marketing issue, for that matter, other than misrepresentation.

FU clauses - some examples would be helpful. But again, eGAP is mainly designed to cover software fairness.

Lucky Ace - I'm assuming this was a spam issue.

GP - player was underage.

Tusk - insolvent. Supposed to be handled by the software provider as far as I know.

Interwetten - not familiar but I expect Pinababy will be elaborating on this further.

In any case - the majority of eCOGRA operations have little or no issues. I don't quite see what you are getting at as far as what eCOGRA has "done" for the industry.

FU clause:
form Royal Vegas promotional T&Cs:
"Before any withdrawals are processed, your play will be reviewed for any irregular playing patterns e.g. playing of equal, zero margin bets or hedge betting, which all shall be considered irregular gaming for bonus play-through requirement purposes.
Other examples of irregular game play include but are not limited to, placing single bets using your entire or the majority of your account balance, where the majority of that balance is made up of bonus balance. The Casino reserves the right to decide in its sole discretion which activities constitute irregular play for bonus play-through requirement purposes from time-to-time and to withhold any cash-ins where irregular play has occurred to meet bonus play-through requirements."

Lucky Ace: massive theft of winnings, most were paid in the end but not everyone. They didnt have a eCOGRA seal at that moment but got it shortly after. eCogra obviously tought that they handled the case so good that they were worthy of a seal..

GP: Yes the player was underage but that hadnt stopped them from accepting deposits and processing cashouts. The player just won too much. This was obviously ok with eCOGRA, shouldnt they have had their seal yanked?

TUSK: So a group can go bust the next they without eCOGRA having a clue about it. Wow I feel safe..

Interwetten: Badly designed promo that backfired. They decided to cancel it afterwards and confiscating winnings of at least 50k. As with Lucky Ace they were later "rewarded" for this behaviour by eCOGRA and got their seal.

And not to mention the roguish terms that Villa Fortuna had back in February. They didnt actually breach any eGAP term. They later changed the T&Cs but not thanks to eCOGRA.

And finally two of the groups that are approved (FL and CR) have a very lousy reputation among advantage players.

And if eGAP is mainly covering software fairness then as said its worthless, you arent more safe than at any other casinos using the same software.

 

[GrandMaster]

I think it should be pointed out that eCOGRA's primary role is to set the standards - and it most certainly expects its members to abide by these standards. It is obviously impractical to require eCOGRA to pre-approve any and all emails or marketing projects, and similarly they cannot monitor everything that is put out by all the casinos.

The way to approach an issue like this would be to contact them if you see a breach of any of these conditions. And I'm sure most of us would like to know if issues like these aren't addressed in a timely manner.

Ecogra could set higher standards, e.g., require rather than just recommend truthfulness. Auditing the marketing activities of casinos ought to be less work than the TGTR. Something as simple as looking at the websites once a month would have nipped Jackpot Factory's SEO activities in the bud.

 

[spearmaster]

Ecogra could set higher standards, e.g., require rather than just recommend truthfulness. Auditing the marketing activities of casinos ought to be less work than the TGTR. Something as simple as looking at the websites once a month would have nipped Jackpot Factory's SEO activities in the bud.

While I obviously would support such an idea - marketing isn't just about an operator's website. Marketing should also cover all promotional emails, all affiliate marketing, all traditional broadcast, print and display media...

As you can see, this is absolutely impossible no matter how many resources they dedicate to this effort, so I would have to disagree with you.

eCOGRA cannot reasonably be expected to do the policing as well as setting the policy - this would be somewhat similar to a country's lawmakers playing police as well.

spiderlegz - the FU clause certainly doesn't contravene any standard - however, if someone is caught by this clause they should be able to appeal to eCOGRA and have it fairly reviewed. You and I may not like this clause, but it isn't really unfair and obviously does not apply to all cases.

LA and Interwetten were not "rewarded"... LOL... what is important here is whether either of them had any issues *after* they were accredited by eCOGRA.

Reputation amongst "advantage" players means nothing... haha... advantage players go in and try to expose every loophole and try every trick in the book to make a quick buck... many times using multiple accounts, or breaching other conditions, so you think they can adhere to a different standard? It's players like this which forced some casino operations to become much more restrictive in the first place... so talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[Tengil]

While I obviously would support such an idea - marketing isn't just about an operator's website. Marketing should also cover all promotional emails, all affiliate marketing, all traditional broadcast, print and display media...

As you can see, this is absolutely impossible no matter how many resources they dedicate to this effort, so I would have to disagree with you.

eCOGRA cannot reasonably be expected to do the policing as well as setting the policy - this would be somewhat similar to a country's lawmakers playing police as well.

spiderlegz - the FU clause certainly doesn't contravene any standard - however, if someone is caught by this clause they should be able to appeal to eCOGRA and have it fairly reviewed. You and I may not like this clause, but it isn't really unfair and obviously does not apply to all cases.

LA and Interwetten were not "rewarded"... LOL... what is important here is whether either of them had any issues *after* they were accredited by eCOGRA.

Reputation amongst "advantage" players means nothing... haha... advantage players go in and try to expose every loophole and try every trick in the book to make a quick buck... many times using multiple accounts, or breaching other conditions, so you think they can adhere to a different standard? It's players like this which forced some casino operations to become much more restrictive in the first place... so talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Not unfair? And doesnt contravene any standard? Well that just tells what the standards are worth. The Villa Fortuna old terms also didnt contravene their standards.

LA and Interwetten. Just go ahead and screw some players as long as you do it before you apply for a seal. We dont care. Edit: LA was operated by Cassava.

Reputation among advantage players means nothing? They usually know the exact terms and follow them to the point. So I guess its forbidden to try to win using bonuses. Just because those who design the promos are mathematically challenged doesnt give them any right to confiscate winnings.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

While I obviously would support such an idea - marketing isn't just about an operator's website. Marketing should also cover all promotional emails, all affiliate marketing, all traditional broadcast, print and display media...

As you can see, this is absolutely impossible no matter how many resources they dedicate to this effort, so I would have to disagree with you.

eCOGRA cannot reasonably be expected to do the policing as well as setting the policy - this would be somewhat similar to a country's lawmakers playing police as well.

spiderlegz - the FU clause certainly doesn't contravene any standard - however, if someone is caught by this clause they should be able to appeal to eCOGRA and have it fairly reviewed. You and I may not like this clause, but it isn't really unfair and obviously does not apply to all cases.

LA and Interwetten were not "rewarded"... LOL... what is important here is whether either of them had any issues *after* they were accredited by eCOGRA.

Reputation amongst "advantage" players means nothing... haha... advantage players go in and try to expose every loophole and try every trick in the book to make a quick buck... many times using multiple accounts, or breaching other conditions, so you think they can adhere to a different standard? It's players like this which forced some casino operations to become much more restrictive in the first place... so talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

You clearly know next to nothing about advantage play. This post only serves to demonstrate your lack of understanding on the subject. Advantage play has nothing to do with cheating or multiple account fraud. And contray to your opinion advantage players DO care about the reputations of casinos.

 

[spearmaster]

As one of the first advantage players around, I beg to differ

However, I didn't play advantage to the tee either. After reaching my PTR, I would always play on to reach a goal or hit a limit.

Needless to say I know exactly what an advantage player is like - and frankly, if you meet the terms and conditions of the promotion, you should be paid, no questions asked - but you also know that many advantage players went out of their way to defraud casinos with multiple accounts, thus tightening up the procedures at said casinos.

I will go out of my way to defend the use of bots, for example, or back a player who has met the terms and conditions - but I do not buy into this baloney about "having a poor reputation" amongst advantage players.

I do not define bonus hunting as bonus abuse. But a large number of advantage players do in fact commit bonus abuse in a number of ways - you know this as well as anyone else so don't try to claim otherwise.

DG, you clearly know nothing about me - so please spare me your ridiculous accusations.

Not unfair? And doesnt contravene any standard? Well that just tells what the standards are worth. The Villa Fortuna old terms also didnt contravene their standards.

The FU clause you are referring to doesn't give them a license to steal from players. It does give them the opportunity to protect themselves from being defrauded. If, however, they use that clause to refuse to pay winnings that were legitimately earned, then it is clear you should complain to eCOGRA.

LA and Interwetten. Just go ahead and screw some players as long as you do it before you apply for a seal. We dont care. Edit: LA was operated by Cassava.

I didn't say you have to trust the operation. However, this discussion is about eCOGRA - and not something that happened before they became members.

Got anything which happened afterwards? I'm sure eCOGRA will be glad to address the issue - but how in the world do you expect them to take any responsibility for what happened beforehand?

 

[Rusty]

eCOGRA cannot reasonably be expected to do the policing as well as setting the policy - this would be somewhat similar to a country's lawmakers playing police as well.



I completely disagree with this because I feel this is exactly what should be expected of an organization such as this.
The word policy is actually derived from the word police.
If they are not policing their own policies then who is?
What is the point of having any policies in the first instance?

This is why I worry that organizations such as ecogra just add a veneer of respectability and legitimacy to software suppliers and casinos that simply does not exist.
Whether this is a deliberate marketing ploy or the baby (ecogra) is just teething is up for debate.
I believe the question of legitiamcy and intent is fair for as long as the baby does not grow some real teeth.

 

[spearmaster]

eCOGRA cannot reasonably be expected to do the policing as well as setting the policy - this would be somewhat similar to a country's lawmakers playing police as well.



I completely disagree with this because I feel this is exactly what should be expected of an organization such as this.
The word policy is actually derived from the word police.
If they are not policing their own policies then who is?
What is the point of having any policies in the first instance?

This is why I worry that organizations such as ecogra just add a veneer of respectability and legitimacy to software suppliers and casinos that simply does not exist.
Whether this is a deliberate marketing ploy or the baby (ecogra) is just teething is up for debate.
I believe the question of legitiamcy and intent is fair for as long as the baby does not grow some real teeth.

Funnily enough, they do in fact periodically check into what is going on - just like any policy maker in government would be interested in seeing that the regulations are being properly enforced.

However, the policy maker in government cannot check into every instance 24/7 round-the-clock - that's what police are for. The same goes for eCOGRA.

 

[Tengil]

The FU clause you are referring to doesn't give them a license to steal from players. It does give them the opportunity to protect themselves from being defrauded. If, however, they use that clause to refuse to pay winnings that were legitimately earned, then it is clear you should complain to eCOGRA.



I didn't say you have to trust the operation. However, this discussion is about eCOGRA - and not something that happened before they became members.

Got anything which happened afterwards? I'm sure eCOGRA will be glad to address the issue - but how in the world do you expect them to take any responsibility for what happened beforehand?

The FU clause lets them decide what is irregular betting without clearly saying what is considered as irregular betting. A license to steal in other words.

So if Virtual would get an eCOGRA seal that would be ok? And LA was a skin or whatever you call it of 888. Why give a seal to thiefs?

eCOGRA failed at Bella Vegas and TUSK. And CR and FL among others still continue with random confiscations of winnings. And the MiniVegas issue back in 2007.

And I wont comment further on their complaint process other that I have read of legitimate complaints being turned down.

 

[spearmaster]

The FU clause lets them decide what is irregular betting without clearly saying what is considered as irregular betting. A license to steal in other words.

Well, look at it this way. A martingale strategy should not be considered irregular betting. Although I don't know what other things they could be referring to, in my mind the only irregular betting pattern is offsetting bets such as red and black, for example.

So if Virtual would get an eCOGRA seal that would be ok? And LA was a skin or whatever you call it of 888. Why give a seal to thiefs?

Sure it would be ok. Doesn't mean that I would play there... haha... and if they meet their obligations as a member of eCOGRA, there isn't really much one can say... but I still wouldn't play there

eCOGRA failed at Bella Vegas and TUSK. And CR and FL among others still continue with random confiscations of winnings. And the MiniVegas issue back in 2007.

They did not fail at BV. Though for the record I didn't fully agree with the reasoning either. Tusk - I don't know the whole situation so better I don't comment. CR and FL - confiscations of what winnings? MV I don't know either.

And I wont comment further on their complaint process other that I have read of legitimate complaints being turned down.

Don't get me wrong - as I said I don't always agree with their decisions. But there are some instances in which perhaps they don't have enough information to make a decision, or any reason to doubt one side over the other.

I see some of these decisions, and I sometimes write to them to disagree (like BV). Some of them I don't write to them but I might see in a subsequent PAB, where MaxD can sometimes revisit the situation - and sometimes I spot something that they don't.

Basically, without specific knowledge of said legitimate complaints being turned down, there isn't much I can say either

 

[Rusty]

However, the policy maker in government cannot check into every instance 24/7 round-the-clock - that's what police are for. The same goes for eCOGRA.

ecogra are not a Government, I do not know why you keep making that analogy.
A Government makes policy on a multitude of aspects that affect our Daily lives, it is necessary to have 3rd parties to oversee these policies but even then it can be argued that all these parties including the police are just another branch of the Government, they do not opertate independent of the main body. (The police just enforce the law passed by Goverment)
The question remains unanswered, who ensures (polices) ecogra's recommendations or ensures their policies are carried out by their members?

To make a better analogy, which I referenced earlier, we need to look at similar well established and respected bodies that make policy for their members in a particular field.
FIFA for example both makes policy and polices its members.
It has the legal power to fine and make sanctions on all its members.
All the Assosiations beneath it and all the Football clubs within are bound by FIFA's laws.
They all remain under the FIFA umbrella because not to do so would be financial suicide.
FIFA themselves make their policies transparent to the public and are ultimately answerable to them the press and the Law of the land.

I am sure there are better examples that closer reflect the remote gaming industry but I use them because they are a World brand and shining example of how an association can benefit its members through strong regulation, policing and sound judgment. (You may see the Referees as the policemen the individual associations as Superintendents and FIFA as the Government to shoehorn it in to fit your analogy but ecogra has no policemen)

 

[spearmaster]

However, the policy maker in government cannot check into every instance 24/7 round-the-clock - that's what police are for. The same goes for eCOGRA.

ecogra are not a Government, I do not know why you keep making that analogy.
A Government makes policy on a multitude of aspects that affect our Daily lives, it is necessary to have 3rd parties to oversee these policies but even then it can be argued that all these parties including the police are just another branch of the Government, they do not opertate independent of the main body. (The police just enforce the law passed by Goverment)
The question remains unanswered, who enssssures (polices) ecogra's recommendations or ensures their policies are carried out by their members?

To make a better analogy, which I referenced earlier, we need to look at similar well established and respected bodies that make policy for their members in a particular field.
FIFA for example both makes policy and polices its members.
It has the legal power to fine and make sanctions on all its members.
All the Assosiations beneath it and all the Football clubs within are bound by FIFA's laws.
They all remain under the FIFA umbrella because not to do so would be financial suicide.
FIFA themselves make their policies transparent to the public and are ultimately answerable to them the press and the Law of the land.

I am sure there are better examples that closer reflect the remote gaming industry but I use them because they are a World brand and shining example of how an association can benefit its members through strong regulation, policing and sound judgment. (You may see the Referees as the policemen the individual associations as Superintendents and FIFA as the Government to shoehorn it in to fit your analogy but ecogra has no policemen)

I agree, FIFA is a better example.

Does FIFA monitor the actions of each country 24/7? Obviously not.

Does FIFA have to approve every action of each national football association? Obviously not.

FIFA takes action when a national football association breaches a FIFA regulation - said action could result in warning or suspension.

Is eCOGRA any different?

Using your football analogy, let's talk about UEFA.

Darren Fletcher got red-carded for an alleged foul. Neither the ref, nor Sir Alex himself, saw that Fletcher had played the ball first.

UEFA's rules do not allow the red card to be overturned.

Should UEFA have been monitoring the game, and told the ref to rescind the red card and the penalty at the moment it occurred?

Should UEFA make an exception to their regulations and rule that the red card was improperly given, thus allowing Fletcher to take part in the Champions League final?

(here's hoping you support Man U LOL... I do!)

 

[Rusty]

I agree, FIFA is a better example.

Does FIFA monitor the actions of each country 24/7? Obviously not.

Does FIFA have to approve every action of each national football association? Obviously not.

FIFA takes action when a national football association breaches a FIFA regulation - said action could result in warning or suspension.

Is eCOGRA any different?

Using your football analogy, let's talk about UEFA.

Darren Fletcher got red-carded for an alleged foul. Neither the ref, nor Sir Alex himself, saw that Fletcher had played the ball first.

UEFA's rules do not allow the red card to be overturned.

Should UEFA have been monitoring the game, and told the ref to rescind the red card and the penalty at the moment it occurred?

Should UEFA make an exception to their regulations and rule that the red card was improperly given, thus allowing Fletcher to take part in the Champions League final?

(here's hoping you support Man U LOL... I do!)

I am a massive Red

FIFA does indeed monitor the actions of each Country and the FA for example can only act in accordance with FIFA regulations and that also answers your second question.

Take the MLS a new organization in the US for club level football.
They also have to operate under FIFA and should they decide they wish to operate outside of FIFA, FIFA would have the power to ban the US National side from all competition and MLS would obviously be seen as a Micky mouse operation. (Like a Casino operating outside of a recognised regulatory body)

UEFA's rules do not allow the red card to be overturned.

No, and there is a problem with that regulation and they should change it.
That is just about proper regulations though not there implementation.

Should UEFA have been monitoring the game, and told the ref to rescind the red card and the penalty at the moment it occurred?

As far as I know all games are monitored by UEFA/FIFA along with the referees performance.
The referee also makes a match report to the relevant body.
How quickly FIFA (ecogra) react to breaches of policy is only relevant in a much broader time frame.
Much more important is that they are aware of any indiscretions or breaches of the rules and have the capability and will to act appropriately.

Should UEFA make an exception to their regulations and rule that the red card was improperly given, thus allowing Fletcher to take part in the Champions League final?

UEFA is the European governing body and is approved by FIFA the World governing body,under these are the individual National governing bodies, it is a pyramid system with FIFA at the top.

If a regulation is really just a function to govern behaviour and if it is not working then you had better review it and change it or you may appear to lack common sense and be officious.
Certainly the example you give is One that UEFA need to review but they should certainly not make an exception to their own regulation.
The smart thing to do is to make provisional laws that allow you to deal with any inadequacies in a regulation until such time it can be reviewed and changed.
I believe Man Utd are appealing for the Red card to be rescinded on compassionate grounds which a loose interpretation of another UEFA regulation would allow.
I fear they will have no success there

We are drifting away from the point of making such an analogy though which was to show a serious regulatory body both polices its members and has the power to fine and make very strong sanctions against them.
The members themselves can be deeply impacted by such sanctions and the incentive to adhere to the regulations is very strong.

If ecogra has no policing of its policies and no real power to make sanctions it is pretty much an empty vessel their members need not respect.
I am not ignoring that some players have got redress through ecogra when I say that.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Spearmaster you admit to being an advantage player. So by your own definition did you have multiple accounts and use every loophole in the book in order to make a fast buck?

You seem to use 'advantage player' and what I would call 'bonus whores' interchangably. If it was in a live casino for example the advantage player would be the one card counting in his head and the abusive player would be the one with an iphone stashed somewhere. There is a big difference.

As far as this eGOGRA business is concerned yet again it is a case of this industry looking inwards and not outwards. The success of eCOGRA will be determined by the players. We are not muppets. We do know what goes on. The FL fiasco is well known about amongst players. As are the reputations of the companies involved in eCOGRA. Players will make their own minds up and vote with their feet. How can this quango be good for players when what we really need is an independant organisation or ombudsman?

 

[spearmaster]

I am a massive Red

LOL. That's going to make this discussion a lot more entertaining

FIFA does indeed monitor the actions of each Country and the FA for example can only act in accordance with FIFA regulations and that also answers your second question.

Exactly what eCOGRA does - monitors the actions of its members. Not 24/7, mind you - but it certainly does keep an eye on them.

Take the MLS a new organization in the US for club level football.
They also have to operate under FIFA and should they decide they wish to operate outside of FIFA, FIFA would have the power to ban the US National side from all competition and MLS would obviously be seen as a Micky mouse operation. (Like a Casino operating outside of a recognised regulatory body)

MLS isn't that new

What you're saying is, for example, that all MGS casinos must be members of eCOGRA - failing which eCOGRA could eject Microgaming?

I think this is probably not the correct comparison, as I do not believe that all operators of the approved software providers are in fact eCOGRA members.

UEFA's rules do not allow the red card to be overturned.

No, and there is a problem with that regulation and they should change it.
That is just about proper regulations though not there implementation.

Yes, I fully agree. And if eCOGRA run into a situation where it is clear their regulations need to be changed, I should hope that they do the same thing.

Should UEFA have been monitoring the game, and told the ref to rescind the red card and the penalty at the moment it occurred?

As far as I know all games are monitored by UEFA/FIFA along with the referees performance.
The referee also makes a match report to the relevant body.
How quickly FIFA (ecogra) react to breaches of policy is only relevant in a much broader time frame.
Much more important is that they are aware of any indiscretions or breaches of the rules and have the capability and will to act appropriately.

Obviously this is not real-time monitoring. Much of what they do depends on the report of the referee, plus any correspondence from the clubs involved - and of course they should have plenty of video evidence. But they do not proactively approve each referee's decision before it is given.

I would suggest that eCOGRA performs much in the same manner. If any "indiscretion or breach" should come to their attention, they should indeed have the capability and will to act appropriately as well.

I think the issue with regard to this thread is whether an issue with a provider comes under eCOGRA's "mandate", if you will.

Should UEFA make an exception to their regulations and rule that the red card was improperly given, thus allowing Fletcher to take part in the Champions League final?

UEFA is the European governing body and is approved by FIFA the World governing body,under these are the individual National governing bodies, it is a pyramid system with FIFA at the top.

If a regulation is really just a function to govern behaviour and if it is not working then you had better review it and change it or you may appear to lack common sense and be officious.
Certainly the example you give is One that UEFA need to review but they should certainly not make an exception to their own regulation.
The smart thing to do is to make provisional laws that allow you to deal with any inadequacies in a regulation until such time it can be reviewed and changed.
I believe Man Utd are appealing for the Red card to be rescinded on compassionate grounds which a loose interpretation of another UEFA regulation would allow.
I fear they will have no success there

Very unfortunate - as I'm sure you will agree, Darren Fletcher is one of the most honest players in the game - walked off the pitch with no argument like a true gentleman - and arguably deserves to play in the final.

Nevertheless - eCOGRA would probably need to have a similar provisional regulation allowing exceptions to be made until such time as the offending regulation is modified. At the moment, it could be argued that there are some things that eCOGRA isn't able to take into consideration according to their regulations - so I would think this could be a good suggestion to eCOGRA to review their current regulations to bring them up to date if necessary.

We are drifting away from the point of making such an analogy though which was to show a serious regulatory body both polices its members and has the power to fine and make very strong sanctions against them.
The members themselves can be deeply impacted by such sanctions and the incentive to adhere to the regulations is very strong.

If ecogra has no policing of its policies and no real power to make sanctions it is pretty much an empty vessel their members need not respect.
I am not ignoring that some players have got redress through ecogra when I say that.

As I have said before, there is no question that eCOGRA does in fact monitor its approved members - this is not quite the same as policing - which by my definition means active monitoring 24/7.

It most definitely has the power to make sanctions - it did so when Jackpot Factory had that pathetic SEO issue. And I have no doubt that, if necessary, eCOGRA will not hesitate to impose sanctions on any operation that breaches its regulations.

Tell ya what though - I am enjoying this discussion a lot more - you gave a much better example than I did

 

[spearmaster]

Spearmaster you admit to being an advantage player. So by your own definition did you have multiple accounts and use every loophole in the book in order to make a fast buck?

I admit to having been an advantage player many moons ago - that would be 2000 and 2001. However, I did not have multiple accounts, and as far as loopholes - it's entirely possible but certainly I did not go searching for them.

You seem to use 'advantage player' and what I would call 'bonus whores' interchangably. If it was in a live casino for example the advantage player would be the one card counting in his head and the abusive player would be the one with an iphone stashed somewhere. There is a big difference.

Not quite. Advantage players are mostly bonus hunters - well actually, I guess bonus whore counts too But there are a number of advantage players who are abusers, whether you like it or not.

If you honest advantage players (there, that's a bit more distinguishing, eh?) are getting screwed out of your winnings because of "irregular betting" and crap like that, I am most definitely on your side.

As far as this eGOGRA business is concerned yet again it is a case of this industry looking inwards and not outwards. The success of eCOGRA will be determined by the players. We are not muppets. We do know what goes on. The FL fiasco is well known about amongst players. As are the reputations of the companies involved in eCOGRA. Players will make their own minds up and vote with their feet. How can this quango be good for players when what we really need is an independant organisation or ombudsman?

I agree that the success of eCOGRA will be determined by the players. However, this FL fiasco you are referring to is only "known" to a small group of players - don't even think for a moment that advantage players represent a large section of the overall player community.

And just in case you didn't know - FL burned me in 2000 just like you, I am definitely one of the first in that category too. I eventually got my money though - and this was well before eCOGRA existed. I guarantee you that if you played by the rules, I am on your side! So you are barking up the wrong tree.

By the way, if anyone is interested in a blast from the past, here is the first Archive.org record of my former site

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

- and funnily enough, links up my article on "Taking fair advantage of a casino bonus" which was posted July 3, 2000.

 

[Rusty]

MLS isn't that new

What you're saying is, for example, that all MGS casinos must be members of eCOGRA - failing which eCOGRA could eject Microgaming?

I think this is probably not the correct comparison, as I do not believe that all operators of the approved software providers are in fact eCOGRA members.

I think MLS is 13 Years old which is new in the context of football organisations.

No I am not saying all MG casinos must do anything.
What I am saying is that if you have a well respected organisation that makes and implements regulations that are universally accepted as beneficial to the industry and that organisation has wide reaching powers then any Casino that opts out of such an organisation would naturally be seen as wanting to avoid operating under those regulations.
Just as in the example I gave with MLS, they do not have to operate within FIFA, it is up to their discretion.
Once a member joins though FIFA still have the power to expe them. (so any member Casino could be thrown out for serious breaches of regulations just like any football team from FIFA competitions)

I am not sure what you mean by "approved software providers" but I understand that not all (most in fact) software providers or all Casinos are ecogra members and that just reinforces my above points.

Obviously this is not real-time monitoring. Much of what they do depends on the report of the referee, plus any correspondence from the clubs involved - and of course they should have plenty of video evidence. But they do not proactively approve each referee's decision before it is given.

I would suggest that eCOGRA performs much in the same manner. If any "indiscretion or breach" should come to their attention, they should indeed have the capability and will to act appropriately as well.

No but the referee is there to ensure the regulations of FIFA are adhered to and that the game is fair. (assuming the Ref is not on the take more comparisons there). Remember the referee is FIFA's policeman.
ecogra have no policemen, I seem to keep repeating that.
It is impractical to police the policeman(Ref) in real time, he has his mandate passed to down to him and his performance is reviewed, that is reasonable.
The point is he is there to ensure that the regulations are not broken by the members in real time.
An ecogra equivelant could be an inspector that tests the software in real time from an end users perspective.
(The details of how this would actually work in the real World could/would go on for many pages) I really would need to be paid a consultancy fee for that

Regarding your last paragraph I am not sure you write it with much conviction.
You suggest that ecogra works in much the same manner and then go on to write,
If any "indiscretion or breach" should come to their attention, they should indeed have the capability and will to act appropriately as well.

Yes they should but they don't that is it in a nutshell.
Now if you had writen do instead of should I would find myself making the same arguments as to why disagree all over again.

I think the issue with regard to this thread is whether an issue with a provider comes under eCOGRA's "mandate", if you will.

That is really a symptom of the main issue.
I am saying a cure for this would be if ecogra were stronger with wider reaching powers and respected equally in its ability amongst Casinos.
(Just as FIFA is amongst its members and hence potential members want to join ASAP. In fact if they wish to be taken seriously they have to join and that is a measure of FIFA's power and standing.

The real issue is how best to make ecogra into such a powerful and widely respected regulatory body that every Casino wants to join or put another way why is ecogra not a powerful and widely respected regulatory body that all Casinos wish to join.

So my contention still is that ecogra suffers when compared to other regulatory organisations but with a positive spin that just means there is more scope for improvement
I think they just need to stick their heads out of the parapet and realise that proper regulation need not stifle any money making enterprise but infact can have a positive economic impact for their members a la FIFA.

OK enough of that analogy now because obviously the more focussed the discussion becomes the less appropriate the comparisons.
That and it is making my head spin.

On Fletcher-Yes he was a true Gentleman and obviously Drogba could learn a lot from Him as I dare say Fletcher felt an even greater sense of personal injustice.
If only society had more role models like Him.