eCOGRA MG Audits

[AussieDave]

Hi all,

In an effort not to derail my own thread, I decided the start another about the topic of eCogra Audits. The catalyst was this post by Mousey:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/what-consitutes-a-rogue-dodgy-casino-for-you.31012/

My response seen here:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/what-consitutes-a-rogue-dodgy-casino-for-you.31012/

---------

Although I've seen eCogra mediate positive outcomes for players at their Sealed Casinos, I've always held concern to the fact that:

• 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

NB - It should be noted that John Anderson (ex CEO of 888.com) also injected start up funds into eCOGRA and still holds a position as a Non Executive Board Director. I also believe that Bwin injected funds into eCOGRA. Like Roger Raatgever the CEO of Bwin has since stepped down. In his place sits Oliver Eckel (Head of Corporate Security for Bwin Interactive Entertainment AG.)


OK I don't agree with how eCOGRA fundamentally operates. But when transposing these opinions to the issue I hold with eCOGRA also conducting Audit reports for Microgaming powered casinos, it's just WRONG, WRONG,WRONG!!!

IMHO it further galvanises the CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues between eCOGRA and Microgaming.

Before eCOGRA conducted these audits, PWC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) performed the audit reports for all MG casinos. As far as I was concerned this was a disconnected, well trusted third party company & nothing lead me to believe that the audit reports would or could be tampered with.

However since eCOGRA has conducted the audit reports for MG casinos, and with the knowledge of Microgaming's relationship & direct connection to eCOGRA operations, it begs one to question & hold doubt to the legitimacy of these eCOGRA MG audits.

When PWC did the MG audits least they delivered these every month.

EG - PWC: (remove YYY)
YYYhttp://www.captaincookscasino.com/security/auditors.asp

eCogra: (remove YYY)
YYYhttp://www.captaincookscasino.com/ecogra/

(I've used Casino Cook Casino as an example. However these results (or lack of) are present on all eCOGRA Sealed casinos).

What happen to 2007 audits?

Why are the Slots, Table Games, Poker Games & All Games audits on ALL eCOGRA Sealed MG casinos only up to 28'th February 2009?

BTW March 2009 & April 2009 audits are not displayed.

Since eCOGRA opened I've dropped in the ball park of the $300K in deposits. With a play through that would probably exceed $7mill +. That gives me more than enough play time to establish if things are funky or not. (regardless of what the shills say)

With the numerous players now questioning the percentage returns and pay-outs of MG slots and other games, and myself seeing consistent funky slot results when gambling at MG casinos, I have a right (so do you) to questions & hold doubt to the legitimacy of the eCOGRA audits and the fairness of MG casino software on a whole.

Cheers
T

 

[same_old]

Awesome post trezz.

You are right and I did mention in another post that if a place like AP scandal, The company didnt even attempt to look into the issues and I bet they new about the superuser account anyway. It had to take the general public to come forth and show stats that were damming to say the least and basically HAD to address it.

Now we come to casino's and it's starting to work the same way, we are getting players and affiliates who notice something is just not right here but how can we gather pretty solid evidance like they did with AP???, well there is the thousands upon thousands spins we all do to notice it and get play stats but then as you say the Ecorga seal does have a conflict of interest with the MG group so how do we know what we get is actually proper stats etc?- we dont do we.

I mean both compines need each other here so im sure backs are being scratched so its business as usual.

I have a BIG feeling this was a spot on post you have started and some really interesting stuff is going to come out here.

I'm sure we ALL thank you for taking the time to investigate this mate and am personally eager to see what happens.

Regards,

Same_old

 

[The Dude]

...

Of course the shills will tell you otherwise
...

So if anyone disagrees with you, they are a shill? Good way to get any objectivity injected into this thread.

If it wasn't for the initial funding to get eCOGRA off the ground, we wouldn't have this entity to kick around, now would we? All this negativity would be focused on Casinomeister since this is the true shill haven.

Tell me - besides eCOGRA, what other entity assists players at the same level that Casinomeister does?

Tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock....

No one.

So I thank MGS and 888.com for getting this organization off the ground and deflecting this player and webmaster hostility from me. That was pretty cool

Segue to the shilly comments: it's been reported ad nauseam on how eCOGRA's services are used by a number of COMPETING software providers - but if you choose not to see this, you never will.

eCOGRA's Tex Rees has also been instrumental in resolving thousands of player issues. I guess this is just another ploy of the puppet masters pulling the strings...

If you find problems with their reporting techniques, try contacting them and asking them what's up. To beat them up with unfounded or unfair comments is not the way to go.

/shill post

 

[jetset]

Well said, CM - there are a number of inaccuracies and ommissions in Trezz's post which surprise me, given his position as a webmaster in the industry.

These are issues that have all been debated many times, and the facts are in numerous places on the Internet, including eCOGRA.org.

For example, three independent directors with unimpeachable records in the wider industry run the operational side of the organisation and oversee the activities of the CEO and his staff - the other directors from Bwin, 888.com and MGS are not hands on when it comes to operations.

eCOGRA itself is audited and overseen by KPMG, one of the Big Six international audit and professional services groups.

As Bryan says, Tex Rees has over the past five years assisted many players and puts out regular transparent reports on her activities - the most recent of which indicated that something like half of complaints were resolved in favour of the player if I recall correctly - that's a pretty strange way to conspire with the casinos against the player, I'd say.

There are few organisations as accessible as eCOGRA, and I would recommend that Trezz ask his questions direct from the horse's mouth before posting further.

I would also suggest that he use the online complaints facility at the eCOGRA site to lodge a formal complaint if he feels the MGS software has been jimmied.

If he provides full details of his suspicions and asks for a review of his playing records we may get facts instead of supposition and accusations that the organisation is in some way corrupt.

Of course, that hinges on whether you think that eCOGRA and its high profile directors would risk deliberately falsifying such a review....if you believe that, then I doubt your fears can be addressed or assuaged by anyone with comparable resources.

 

[Tengil]

While I dont think for a second that eCOGRA would provide any "doctored" audits I dont see anything else positive about them except Tex Reese.

Play it Safe? It was anything else than safe for those at Arctic Poker (only TUSK skin that had eCOGRA seal). They apparently had no idea what was going on at TUSK. Edit: So a good example where they failed with their Play it Safe.

They have casinos listed that Ill never would play at starting with Lucky Ace.

And not to talk about their "reputable" portal list..

 

[Mousey]

To put my feelings briefly... I simply feel that ECogra is too closely tied to the industry.

While a working understanding of online gambling and the games and the industry might be helpful in the audits... I have always felt that the audits should come from elsewhere. And don't ask me who should do it. I have no idea. I'm just a player. I'd prefer to go back to something like PWC.

Ecogra doing the MG (and other software) audits is rather like asking my Auntie Sue to audit my bookkeeping and the business where I've worked for 16 years. While she's experienced, knows more about business, bookkeeping, and financial matters than I ever will, and she might even be harsher on me and my books than anyone else... but still... She's too close. It just doesn't sit right with me.

I am NOT screaming 'slots are rigged'. I'm saying, as a player, I'd prefer to see another reputable, professional team audit online casinos and the softwares.

 

[Pinababy69]

There are few organisations as accessible as eCOGRA, and I would recommend that Trezz ask his questions direct from the horse's mouth before posting further.

I would also suggest that he use the online complaints facility at the eCOGRA site to lodge a formal complaint if he feels the MGS software has been jimmied.

If he provides full details of his suspicions and asks for a review of his playing records we may get facts instead of supposition and accusations that the organisation is in some way corrupt.

Of course, that hinges on whether you think that eCOGRA and its high profile directors would risk deliberately falsifying such a review....if you believe that, then I doubt your fears can be addressed or assuaged by anyone with comparable resources.

I completely agree Jetset on your statement about eCOGRA being accessible. I know that personally, if I felt the need to write to Andrew about something, I know I'll get a reply. He absolutely has an open door policy, which is a good thing IMO.

I strongly agree with the bolded part, I am honest to God sick to death of the "rigged" posts I read every single day on this forum. I'm always willing to keep an open mind.....but simply saying that your cashouts have gone down, or that you don't get retriggers, or the same amount of free spins....sorry, I'm not convinced. I've been playing MG software for as long or longer than anyone on this forum (and so has KK), and why is that neither of us believes that the software is rigged? My playing patterns have stayed the same, I deposit the same amounts, I see tons of winning screenshots in the WS forum, and my payout over the last four years hovers right around 96%. And I play regularly, at least once a week, week in and week out, month in and month out. I win, I lose. Once in a while I cashout. It all feels the same to me.

Bring me proof of rigging, or an unfair game, and you will have the biggest advocate in your corner that you could ever hope for. There is one person on this forum, who I actually believe is trying to gather evidence/proof to support his suspicions, and I respect him and his opinions. He knows who he is, and if he can ever convince me of cheating, I'll come out swinging. Until that time, I'm sorry....but it's sour grapes. And I seriously think that some people are just playing way too much and need to maybe take a break.

And FTR, I don't believe that eCOGRA would falsify any audits or reports.

This is the good part of my post, lol.

While I dont think for a second that eCOGRA would provide any "doctored" audits I dont see anything else positive about them except Tex Reese.

Play it Safe? It was anything else than safe for those at Arctic Poker (only TUSK skin that had eCOGRA seal). They apparently had no idea what was going on at TUSK. Edit: So a good example where they failed with their Play it Safe.

They have casinos listed that Ill never would play at starting with Lucky Ace.

And not to talk about their "reputable" portal list..

Yes Spider, you are spot on with that. And let's not forget the whole Casino Action thing that started this ball rolling. eCOGRA yanked their seals from all the casino properties, but put it down to an administrative issue. Administrative issue? Are you shitting me? Ummmm.....a company on the brink of bankruptcy is sure as hell a whole lot more than an administrative issue, and not having their papers in order. eCOGRA knew they were sinking, yet nary a word was breathed to the player community. Players were still allowed to go on playing/depositing, having no idea that the whole company was about to sink. Funny, I always thought that eCOGRA was in the business of PLAYER PROTECTION. Not in the business of protecting the casino, and the employees who work there. Colour me stupid.

I wouldn't play at Lucky Ace either. And how about them awarding the Play It Safe Seal to Interwetten? The infamous Interwetten who still owes thousands upon thousands of dollars to players. I'm sure that issue is well over a year old now......not a peep from Malta (big surprise). But I can tell you that I nearly friggin fell off my chair when I read that Interwetten was joining the eCOGRA stable. Don't tell me they weren't aware of all the player complaints, and the non-response of Malta to those complaints. But hey, go ahead and add them to the "reputable" list.

And don't even get me started on the "link exchange" with affy sites. You ever checked out some of those sites, and the casinos they promote? To trumpet them as reputable portal sites is a joke. Some of them are pure banner farms, with very little, or no content to speak of. Unless they've cleaned it all up since I last checked. It's absolutely nothing more than sites trading links with each other. It's all about business, and has very little to do with ethics and integrity.

Bottom line, if I had to give a judgement on eCOGRA, they are better than nothing. And they are certainly better than ANYTHING Playtech or RTG offers. At least they offer something. And yes, I do believe they have helped some people. It's one of those "on the fence" things for me. I see a lot of room for improvement, have some serious questions about some of their practices (past and present)....BUT, I do think the player is better off with them, than without them.

 

[AussieDave]

I didn't post this thread to start a slinging match. I posted it because there are others who feel the same but for whatever reason wont start such a thread.

I also stated the following but that was conveniently over looked.

I've seen eCogra mediate positive outcomes for players at their Sealed Casinos

there are a number of inaccuracies and ommissions in Trezz's post

You attempt to undermine me & cast aspersion at my credibility.

But ironically you fail to mention that you were hired by eCOGRA as one of their consultants. Or did that just slip your mind
(I also believe that CM was a consultant for eCOGRA too.)

Reiterating I'm not here to post a thread to p#ss people off. I'm just adding my opinions, asking a few questions and stating a few facts.

Maybe I should have also posted about your direct connection with eCOGRA as a paid consultant. But I thought I'd leave that up to those who were/are working for eCOGRA to announce themselves.

I would recommend that Trezz ask his questions direct from the horse's mouth before posting further.

Your suggestion(s) are duly noted. However my concern is now turned to ask why you'd post such comments.

Or does my post upset the status quo? The balance of information peeps need to be force feed as opposed to what you and other don't want to disclose.

From here it looks like anyone who questions eCOGRA's motives will be closed down.

I find that really suspicious & worse extremely disturbing

Cheers
T

 

[Rusty]

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.

Yes it is worthwhile because the player needs all the protection they can get and needs somewhere that will hold the Casinos accountable.

No because it is in no way independent and actually acts as a veneer of legitimacy for Casinos and software that simply is not there.
In this respect it can dilute calls for proper regulation.

To the second question the answer has to be Yes.
If only the taxman would allow me to audit my own accounts and take my results as gospel, I know I am trustworthy.

It is a very similar situation to what we have here in meister land and yet I do not question Bryan's integrity.
Not because I believe he is inscrutable or immune to the prejudices we all have whether we are aware of them or not but because it is my experience that He genuinely makes online gaming a better and safer place and in this case the end justifies the means.

The difference though is that this is a public forum and though it offers a mediation service it does not have the pretense of being an official body that takes a proactive role in ensuring Casinos are fair.

That essentially is what I object to about ecogra and just because online gambling is so poorly regulated it should not mean they are beyond criticism.
They may all be Angels over there for all I know and I would not attack them personally but they must recognize that there is a conflict of interest and where this state exist the general perception will be that not all cases will be dealt with even handedly and in this industry perception is as good as fact.

Let's be realistic, if there was a case that conclusively proved MG was rigged and that ecogra was implicated in some way do we really believe they would judge against themselves and make it public?
Of course not, the very idea is ludicrous.

 

[me_and_ed]

I dont see this as a personal attack, however it does follow the "MO" of this forum, there are certain "pet" casino's, agencies etc that are out of bounds, if these bounds are crossed it is all out warfare. M/G has pretty much had a free pass for a long time. I think the PWC question is valid, a third party entity doing audits, no correlation, no ties, why the change, creedence should be lent to third parties as opposed to "inhouse entities".

 

[The Dude]

I dont see this as a personal attack, however it does follow the "MO" of this forum, there are certain "pet" casino's, agencies etc that are out of bounds, if these bounds are crossed it is all out warfare. M/G has pretty much had a free pass for a long time. I think the PWC question is valid, a third party entity doing audits, no correlation, no ties, why the change, creedence should be lent to third parties as opposed to "inhouse entities".

"Out of bounds" I'm figuring you mean "off-limits" - there is nothing off limits in this forum. Where people get riled is when the same inaccurate posts keep popping up like: the software is rigged, I have a great system for sale, eCOGRA is owned my MGS, or posts like this:

(I also believe that CM was a consultant for eCOGRA too.)

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 same thing goes for discussions on casino software, player fraud, jurisdictions, and companies like eCOGRA. Trezz started this thread with the comment that if anyone disagreed with him, they were a shill. WTF?

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.

 

[RobWin]

I am honest to God sick to death of the "rigged" posts I read every single day on this forum. I'm always willing to keep an open mind.....but simply saying that your cashouts have gone down, or that you don't get retriggers, or the same amount of free spins....sorry, I'm not convinced.

So what's wrong with saying that? Does one have to actually post a spreadsheet of facts on here anymore in order to convince some folks of what they are saying is true?

I have been saying that ever since Dec.06, and have made posts and also started polls about the subject of my playtime and cashouts being drastically decreased over previous years and sessions. Just this past year the topic seems to be popping up a hell of a lot more now. After the UIGEA went into effect and most casinos for the most part starting losing numerous US depositors to their casinos, not just MG either but RTG, Rival, Playtech and others as well. You have to know that these casinos have felt the brunt of the US market share being lost and it was their biggest share.

I'm not saying all of them or even any of them have "Rigged" software but I do truly believe in the "weighting effect" and how that can be manipulated in the casinos favor in order to keep their bottom line intact. And keeping the bottom line intact and profitable in your stockholders eyes is the number one concern of any organization, publicly traded or one with private shareholders. That's the first rule of business..."Keep the bottom line intact".

The online casino business is no different than any other business that is trying to succeed and run a profitable entity. I don't know why there are so many peeps that don't or can't understand that basic concept, not saying you Pina but there are many who think that each time they play that they should be able to play for quite a while and also maybe even have a cashout. But as most of us know that is not always the case. And it has been less and less the case since the UIGEA came into effect.

I could actually post Excel Spreadsheets here showing and proving that what I am saying is a fact regarding my playtime and cashouts at ALL of the different software, at least in my case anyway. And I am sure there are numerous others here who could also do the same but I am not going to do that for a multitude of reasons, the main one being that it is no ones damn business how much I play and win or lose and I'm sure there are others here that also feel the same way. It is your choice for you to decide whether you want to believe what I say about my play and stats since UIGEA came into effect or not.

But for you to just constantly dismiss the fact that others have noticeably seen these anomalies in the various software platforms and you have not may simply just mean that you never will, BUT it also does not mean that they haven't. Maybe some of them are using the term "Rigged" simply because of their lack of a lesser known term called "Weighting" or "Weighted". But it does not mean what they are saying is not the truth though. I will also be the first to admit that the "Weighting Effect" will most likely never be proved one way or the other, at least to the point that true regulation and transparency would come into play.

I've been playing MG software for as long or longer than anyone on this forum (and so has KK), and why is that neither of us believes that the software is rigged?

Yep, same here. But there again the term "Rigged" and "Weighted" can and do come into play. Why would there be a drastic difference online verses the way most land based casinos do this? Weighting has been used by land based casinos for years now, even back when the slot machines were mechanical and they would change the reel strips stops out. They later moved on to changing out the computer chips in each actual machine after they went cyber. And now the land based casinos can do it by simply sending out signal code to the cpu chipsets without actually having to even open the machine up. Believe that or don't believe that, I know that for a fact from inside info at various land based casino properties that I have peeps in upper management positions working at.

My playing patterns have stayed the same, I deposit the same amounts, I see tons of winning screenshots in the WS forum, and my payout over the last four years hovers right around 96%. And I play regularly, at least once a week, week in and week out, month in and month out. I win, I lose. Once in a while I cashout. It all feels the same to me.

That could be due to several factors but I am happy for you that you have not been subjected to the long losing streaks that can and do happen and will cause you to see your RTP hover around the 40-50% area for extended periods of time.

Bring me proof of rigging, or an unfair game, and you will have the biggest advocate in your corner that you could ever hope for. There is one person on this forum, who I actually believe is trying to gather evidence/proof to support his suspicions, and I respect him and his opinions. He knows who he is, and if he can ever convince me of cheating, I'll come out swinging. Until that time, I'm sorry....but it's sour grapes.

OK, what about Absolute Poker and the Ultimate Bet scam? On the other hand though, how could that type of evidence ever actually be obtained or gathered in the first place anyway? Without having or actually knowing the reel strip layouts of the slots or actually knowing how the software shuffles blackjack and how many decks are used in the shoe? Or in video poker, does it also shuffle video poker hands after each discard? Who really knows? And will anyone ever be able to prove or disprove these theories and anomalies in either direction?

And I seriously think that some people are just playing way too much and need to maybe take a break.

In reality though when you really think about it, the peeps that are supposedly playing way too much should be the very ones that can see and that are maintaining the so called 95% payout rate..

eCOGRA knew they were sinking, yet nary a word was breathed to the player community. Players were still allowed to go on playing/depositing, having no idea that the whole company was about to sink. Funny, I always thought that eCOGRA was in the business of PLAYER PROTECTION. Not in the business of protecting the casino, and the employees who work there. Colour me stupid.

Totally agree, color me stupid too. Did anyone actually ever ask eCOGRA what the reason for their hesitation was and why there was not a real warning to the player community issued?? Jetset, any inside knowledge on that question that you can share?

I wouldn't play at Lucky Ace either. And how about them awarding the Play It Safe Seal to Interwetten? The infamous Interwetten who still owes thousands upon thousands of dollars to players. Don't tell me they weren't aware of all the player complaints, and the non-response of Malta to those complaints. But hey, go ahead and add them to the "reputable" list.

Yep, again...I totally agree with your sentiments there Pina over eCOGRA's decision on this issue...what the hell was that about? It's exactly these types of actions from eCOGRA that really makes one wonder what is really going on behind the scenes there...any input on that one Bryan or Jet??

And don't even get me started on the "link exchange" with affy sites. You ever checked out some of those sites, and the casinos they promote? To trumpet them as reputable portal sites is a joke. Some of them are pure banner farms, with very little, or no content to speak of. Unless they've cleaned it all up since I last checked. It's absolutely nothing more than sites trading links with each other. It's all about business, and has very little to do with ethics and integrity.

Yea, I had noticed that as well...again any comments on that one Bryan or Jet?? or anyone else for that matter that has any knowledge as to why eCOGRA would promote these sites??

Bottom line, if I had to give a judgement on eCOGRA, they are better than nothing. And they are certainly better than ANYTHING Playtech or RTG offers. At least they offer something. And yes, I do believe they have helped some people. It's one of those "on the fence" things for me. I see a lot of room for improvement, have some serious questions about some of their practices (past and present)....BUT, I do think the player is better off with them, than without them.

Agreed..

 

[jetset]

This is absolutely typical of an eCOGRA thread - if a poster has a different viewpoint from that of the poster/s attacking eCOGRA he or she is immediately labelled a shill and subjected to personal attacks.

I am of the opinion that Trezz presented his case in a fashion that either downplayed or ignored the key role of the independent directors vs. the original funders and I exercised my right to say so and post the facts.

That's not a personal attack, although Trezz's somewhat emotional response certainly was.

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.

And I think an interest in what experienced industry people had to say back then is an indication of eCOGRA's wider view of the industry and its diverse participants.

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.

I don't personally believe that eCOGRA is corrupt or sides with MGS, 888.com or Bwin operators to the detriment of the player or anyone else.

I think its standards were impartially constructed with solid external academic and business guidance, and that its professional staff is highly qualified outside of the industry to carry out objective inspections and reviews.

The work done by Tex Rees speaks for itself, as does the number of players who submit disputes for her attention.

The fact that the eCOGRA standards are widely respected - not least by a very influential body like EGBA - and its services retained by some of the Internet's top competing companies outside of the original funders, indicates to me that it offers value and credibility beyond a rubber stamped seal.

But, as in the past, there are those that for various reasons disagree with this view and continue to discount what I regard is a positive contributor to the industry.

The original funders of eCOGRA have given remarkable autonomy to the organisation by giving control to independent and very forceful personalities such as Messers Hirst, Catania, Henbrey and Galston, all of whom have stellar past careers in the wider industry.

In doing so they have insulated themselves from active participation in operational issues, again imo.

That is clearly not enough distance for some, and I respect their right to an opinion. But I don't see any other organisation anywhere on the horizon that is privately funded yet does so much to establish a professional and unbiased operating environment.

So, as Pinababy said earlier, on balance my personal view is that the industry is better with eCOGRA than without it.

 

[RobWin]

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.

Yes it is worthwhile because the player needs all the protection they can get and needs somewhere that will hold the Casinos accountable.

No because it is in no way independent and actually acts as a veneer of legitimacy for Casinos and software that simply is not there.
In this respect it can dilute calls for proper regulation.

To the second question the answer has to be Yes.
If only the taxman would allow me to audit my own accounts and take my results as gospel, I know I am trustworthy.

I could not agree with you more Rusty. It reminds me of the way some of the Indian Tribal casinos self-regulate themselves. ie: Harrah's Cherokee Casino, is ran and managed by Harrah's management teams but the Cherokee actually regulate themselve even though there is a state gaming board in North Carolina they are basically a limp d**k in any and all matters and the Indians actually set policy and payout standards there.

That essentially is what I object to about ecogra and just because online gambling is so poorly regulated it should not mean they are beyond criticism.
They may all be Angels over there for all I know and I would not attack them personally but they must recognize that there is a conflict of interest and where this state exist the general perception will be that not all cases will be dealt with even handedly and in this industry perception is as good as fact.

Totally agree...good points.

Let's be realistic, if there was a case that conclusively proved MG was rigged and that ecogra was implicated in some way do we really believe they would judge against themselves and make it public?
Of course not, the very idea is ludicrous.

Don't hold your breath but maybe, just maybe we are starting to get a little closer to true regulation in this industry if Barney and others have their way and Harrah's Entertainment may be getting geared up to enter the industry soon as well. With the rumor that Harrah's had recently hired the former PartyGaming CEO Mitch Garber to head a new company in charge of Harrahs future Internet operations we definitely could be getting steps closer to that reality. Although this rumor has neither been proved or disproved as far as Garber goes it does give one hope that we are approaching that milestone, slowly but surely.

 

[spearmaster]

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.

I do find it interesting, and a little disturbing, that eCOGRA is often thought to be under the influence of Microgaming, 888 et al. I stayed out of the early conversation in this thread precisely because I wanted to see what people thought - and for me the public perception is *the* primary indicator of eCOGRA's success or lack thereof.

So rather than try to defend one side or the other, I will state that I believe eCOGRA to be fair in their dealings, whether I agree with them or not. However, I believe that eCOGRA again need to look at ways to educate the community about what it is they do, how it is that they protect the player, or the affiliate, or whatever.

In my own personal view, and echoing that of Pinababy and Jetset, I am definitely of the belief that the industry is better off with eCOGRA than without it.

 

[The Dude]

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.

As for a conflict of interest - to be fair, you will run into this with every governing agency or any company that offers auditing type services. Show me a regulator or auditor that doesn't receive a fee from those they audit. It doesn't happen all too often.

So yes, there is a possibility of a conflict with every entity that provides services like this. It's a matter of keeping checks and balances in place - being transparent, and being communicative and that is what will win the confidence of others. I think I do this here - and I think that eCOGRA does a good job of this as well.

/shill post

 

[RobWin]

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.

I do find it interesting, and a little disturbing, that eCOGRA is often thought to be under the influence of Microgaming, 888 et al. I stayed out of the early conversation in this thread precisely because I wanted to see what people thought - and for me the public perception is *the* primary indicator of eCOGRA's success or lack thereof.
So rather than try to defend one side or the other, I will state that I believe eCOGRA to be fair in their dealings, whether I agree with them or not. However, I believe that eCOGRA again need to look at ways to educate the community about what it is they do, how it is that they protect the player, or the affiliate, or whatever.

In my own personal view, and echoing that of Pinababy and Jetset, I am definitely of the belief that the industry is better off with eCOGRA than without it.

Spear, In any of your consults with eCOGRA, you didn't by chance happen to ask them their reasoning or opinion as to regarding my questions above that I brought up regarding Pina's post did you??

Also, how would you judge the public perception so far regarding eCOGRA?

 

[RobWin]

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.

As for a conflict of interest - to be fair, you will run into this with every governing agency or any company that offers auditing type services. Show me a regulator or auditor that doesn't receive a fee from those they audit. It doesn't happen all too often.

So yes, there is a possibility of a conflict with every entity that provides services like this. It's a matter of keeping checks and balances in place - being transparent, and being communicative and that is what will win the confidence of others. I think I do this here - and I think that eCOGRA does a good job of this as well.

/shill post

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?

 

[spearmaster]

Spear, In any of your consults with eCOGRA, you didn't by chance happen to ask them their reasoning or opinion as to regarding my questions above that I brought up regarding Pina's post did you??

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...

101.R.3 Reports shall be generated for all changes made to game parameters.

And now the land based casinos can do it by simply sending out signal code to the cpu chipsets without actually having to even open the machine up. Believe that or don't believe that, I know that for a fact from inside info at various land based casino properties that I have peeps in upper management positions working at.

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.

 

[AussieDave]

Hi all,

I started this thread because as a player and as an affiliate I hold concerns about the Conflict of Interest issues between eCOGRA and MGS. This also includes 888 and Bwin.

• The aforementioned software providers injected start up funds into eCOGRA.
• All Non Executive Board Directors of eCOGRA are from MGS, 888 & Bwin.

eCOGRA's states this:
YYYhttp://www.ecogra.com/About.aspx?Page=2&OP=P

"non-executive independent directors will always have control over board decisions"

These Non Executive Board Directors are from MGS, 888 and Bwin.

Can these people be 100% independent; non partisan; autonomous; self-governing & or of free will??? These Non Executive Board Directors represent the same companies that injected the start up funds for eCOGRA. (who know's...they still may inject money into eCOGRA)

Everything pre this constitutes a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The follow from eCOGRA's home page states:
YYYhttp://www.ecogra.com/default.aspx?OP=P
"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."

I've read many eCOGRA press releases.

I have not read any press releases from eCOGRA that disclose that eCOGRA was founded on start up funds from MGS, 888 and Bwin.

I also can not recall any (eCOGRA) press release stating that the Non Executive Board Directors are from MGS, 888, Bwin and hold the deciding vote(s) over all Independent Directors of eCOGRA.

Meaning...eCOGRA could have Queen Elizabeth as a Independent Director but the Non Executive Board Directors have the power to over-rule all Independent Directors votes & rulings.

If that's not enough to make you go WHAT THA!

MGS; 888; Bwin either supply casino software to eCogra accredited casinos or have online casinos directly accredited by eCOGRA's SAFE AND FAIR SEAL's.

Add all this into the mix and it SCREAMS CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues between eCOGRA; MGS; 888 & Bwin.

We hear the words transparent, integrity and others thrown about our industry.

My point to all this is...

I'm not saying that any eCOGRA SEALED CASINOS are Rigged. I'm not saying the audit reports are iffy either.

What I am saying is...

That anyone who makes claims like eCOGRA whilst being in direct CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues, leaves itself wide open for ridicule, doubt and to be challenged on blatant credibility issues.

Edit: One easy solution for eCOGRA and to make all their CONFLICT OF INTEREST issues disappear is to drop (fire) all Non Executive Board Directors.

IMO is this likely, NO.

Cards on the table, IMHO (directly influenced by the conflict of interest issues) eCOGRA is nothing more than a well thought out and planned Marketing tool.


Cheers
T

 

[spearmaster]

eCOGRA's states this:
YYYhttp://www.ecogra.com/About.aspx?Page=2&OP=P

"non-executive independent directors will always have control over board decisions"

These Non Executive Board Directors are from MGS, 888 and Bwin.

You've got it backwards, mate.

eCOGRA's constitution is structured such that the non-executive independent directors will always have control over board decisions, thereby guaranteeing eCOGRA's autonomy from affiliated software providers and operators

The list of directors:

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Andrew Beveridge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INDEPENDENT DIRECTORS
Bill Henbrey
Michael Hirst
Bill Galston
Frank Catania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NON-EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
John Anderson
Chris Hobbs
Oliver Eckel

 

[RobWin]

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.

Right, that's what I said above... We actually agree...

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.

Right, agreed eCOGRA should be concerned with that aspect to somewhat of a lessor degree and let the pros at TST handle that one.

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.

Both of those I seriously doubt that we will ever really know for sure one way or the other but most of us do have our suspicions in both directions.

CPUs do not get modified by signal code. Various control chips may, however.

Right, I did say chipsets but I should have left out the part about CPU..kick me in the a$$ for that mistake...

And in Vegas, the regulations stipulate that a Gaming Control Board representative must be present when this sort of modification is made.

That means absolutely nothing to me since the state of N.C. also says and states the same thing and you know who is standing there watching when this is done at Harrah's there on the Indian Reservation in Cherokee?? I'll give you one guess and this should not be a hard one for you...

 

[spearmaster]

Both of those I seriously doubt that we will ever really know for sure one way or the other but most of us do have our suspicions in both directions.

*ahem*

In at least one case it is not a suspicion

That means absolutely nothing to me since the state of N.C. also says and states the same thing and you know who is standing there watching when this is done at Harrah's there on the Indian Reservation in Cherokee?? I'll give you one guess and this should not be a hard one for you...

Irrelevant. The regulations are clearly defined. If eCOGRA is not upholding this, I would be well and truly disappointed as well.

Also, states do not govern or regulate casinos on Indian reservations.

 

[RobWin]

*ahem*

In at least one case it is not a suspicion



Irrelevant. The regulations are clearly defined. If eCOGRA is not upholding this, I would be well and truly disappointed as well.

Also, states do not govern or regulate casinos on Indian reservations.

Not to derail the eCOGRA issue at hand but just to reply regarding Spears comment:

Right...that's what I previously said in my reply to Rusty's post and I quote me..

I could not agree with you more Rusty. It reminds me of the way some of the Indian Tribal casinos self-regulate themselves. ie: Harrah's Cherokee Casino, is ran and managed by Harrah's management teams but the Cherokee actually regulate themselve even though there is a state gaming board in North Carolina they are basically a limp d**k in any and all matters and the Indians actually set policy and payout standards there.

Harrah's Cherokee actually have a "Tribal Gaming Commission" there that governs and regulates their own activity.

The Gaming Commission derives its power to regulate gaming on the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian lands from the amended Gaming Ordinance passed by the Tribal Council (Ord. 238 (96).

 

[zebedy]

would you be allowed to mark your childs exam paper, no,
i believe whoever does the auditing for casino's should be totally independent, and have nothing whatsoever to do with them, unless they are independent how do we know they are fair? we have there word for it

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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?

 

[The Dude]

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)

 

[The Dude]

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.