Lake Palace 'do an Omni' - Ecogra says casino is right to do so

[jetset]

I agree with your sentiments regarding this ECOGRA ruling, Stanford - what I find disappointing is how fast everyone here is to condemn them on the basis of an isolated error, when they are making a useful contribution to better conditions in the industry.

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

 

[cipher]

I agree with your sentiments regarding this ECOGRA ruling, Stanford - what I find disappointing is how fast everyone here is to condemn them on the basis of an isolated error, when they are making a useful contribution to better conditions in the industry.

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

Hi Jet:

I'm not hell bent on shooting down eCOGRA just yet. But, having said that, I'm not at all convinced that this gal who's been given the responsibility of handling these matters at eCOGRA is at all qualified.

Moreover, from what I've seen of the handling of this particular case this individual appears to be nothing but of a mouthpiece for the casino. It's high time for eCOGRA to offer up someone of substance to speak candidly and directly to this SPECIFIC instance. Have a good one.

 

[Freudian]

Let us see how this develops before everyone shoots them down.

They have twice told the customer that they won't do anything more. So until they change their minds there is no development. It is of course possible that now it is public they will look into the case again, but until they inform us they are indeed looking into it again there is no reason not to be critical of their actions.

 

[jetset]

Tex Rees is no stranger to online and land gambling, I can assure you...and neither is the CEO Andrew Beveridge. They also have access to a number of knowledgeable people should a second opinion be required. Clearly that would have been useful in this individual case.

I'll say no more on this for now, preferring to see what reaction Stanford's well written letter to eCOGRA produces...or not.

 

[spearmaster]

I just wanted a little clarification, that's all.

I haven't offered an opinion yet because I've been too busy working on other things which are tedious and not fun... but now that I'm here... I'm of the opinion that Dirk did take advantage - but the offer is, and was, very clear and as far as I can tell he met all the T&Cs of the promotion.

Stanford - nice one. Very well considered and factual.

 

[spearmaster]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spearmaster
Normally, when people win, they cash out - they don't just leave the money in the account. So, in their minds, if the cashout would have been more than the deposit, they see no reason to pay.

Freudian's reply:
That is incorrect. Normally people play, win/lose, wait for a bonus to be credited if a bonus is promised and then cash out. If this customer withdraws before recieving the bonus, it will affect the bonus. So it makes perfect sense to wait until it's actually credited and cleared before withdrawing.

That is entirely correct. Note the word "Normally". Do you normally wait 3-4 days before cashing out?

I'm only speculating on the casino's opinion here. In this situation, obviously no one would cash out if there were any incentive to not do so - and there was.

 

[Stanford]

what I find disappointing is how fast everyone here is to condemn them on the basis of an isolated error, when they are making a useful contribution to better conditions in the industry.

I'm of the opinion that Dirk did take advantage - but the offer is, and was, very clear and as far as I can tell he met all the T&Cs of the promotion.

Thanks to both for the kind words above. And agree with your assessments.

I think this may be similar to the Gaming Club incident that you guys (and others) worked on before. Then, the casino didn't have an upper limit on the bonus scheme and players took real advantage by depositing large amounts.

My guess is that what scared Lake Palace was the size of Dirk's deposits. I don't know why they do that to themselves. Obviously, the more one deposits the less they turnover on average. But when I look at the site I see this:

"There are NO LIMITS Use ANY purchasing METHOD, and purchase as MUCH AS YOU WANT! The more you PURCHASE the MORE you get!"

Talk about asking for it.

I am certainly not ready to give up on eCOGRA. Hopefully, we will hear the rest of the story soon.

imho,
Stanford

 

[cipher]

With this type of phraseology what the hell did they expect would happen:

"There are NO LIMITS Use ANY purchasing METHOD, and purchase as MUCH AS YOU WANT! The more you PURCHASE the MORE you get!"

And for eCOGRA to even think for a minute that something untoward was going on is unimagineable. Have a good one.

 

[Clayman]

My guess is that what scared Lake Palace was the size of Dirk's deposits...."There are NO LIMITS Use ANY purchasing METHOD, and purchase as MUCH AS YOU WANT! The more you PURCHASE the MORE you get!"

I'm no expert on slots but if you have to wager your deposit once on slots and then 20% of that 15 times on more slots, it doesn't seem real likely to me you will come out real far ahead, if at all. So no wonder they say the more you purchase, the more you get. What they might mean is the more you purchase, the more they win. (The way I read the T&C it is not even necessary to play original deposit on slots but Dirk did, so whatever.)

Makes it even more puzzling to me why they would care about "bonus abuse".

Do slots really payback more than 95%?

Anyway, I hope you get a response to your very well-written letter.

And Dirk - Congrats on being the first slots-only bonus abuser I can recall

 

[MeganSpot]

This is the identical Omni Casino situation. The inducement to put money at risk is retrospectively withdrawn on the basis of behaviour (bonus abuse) detected PRIOR to the acceptance of the offer (bonus).

And the complained "behaviour" (bonus abuse) is merely what? An individual acting in their calculated best interest - calculated meaning according to the published T+Cs.

As it stands eCogra are dead in the water. This is not a single isolated misdemeanour but a clearly and distinctly line gouged in the sand. Such eCogra stupidity is tantamount to an on-line Casino license to kill on sight (the kill-all clause).

I haven't been around all that long but it seems to me that not a month goes by without some incident such as this flaring up across the forum boards. This industry has a long way to go yet.

 

[amandajm]

This "ruling" means Ecogra do not get it unless they remove Tex Rees from her position. If they hang her out to dry I will still be suitably unimpressed.

 

[jetset]

OK, let's back to reason and balance here.

QUOTE My guess is that what scared Lake Palace was the size of Dirk's deposits. I don't know why they do that to themselves. Obviously, the more one deposits the less they turnover on average. But when I look at the site I see this:

"There are NO LIMITS - Use ANY purchasing METHOD, and purchase as MUCH AS YOU WANT! The more you PURCHASE the MORE you get!"

Talk about asking for it. UNQUOTE

I think Stanford has hit it on the head right there.

I remain of the opinion that Dirk should have been paid, because he complied with the casino's T&Cs and that would be the honourable and fair thing to do.

If you put yourselves in their shoes for a moment, the casino was probably pissed that someone repeatedly took such effective advantage of their offer, but that was their own fault for presenting the opportunity for him to do so.

If players are wondering why T&Cs are getting tougher and bonuses less easy pickings this sort of advantage playing might be one of the reasons, btw.

I don't personally believe eCOGRA is "dead in the water" or that Tex Rees should be dismissed on the basis of this incident.

I do think that they urgently need to reconsider their decision in light of Stanford's letter and the content of this and other message boards where Dirk has been posting.

That sort of extremism (killing off eCOGRA and firing people) takes no cogniscence of what has already been achieved, and eCOGRA has much more to contribute to the fair treatment of players and the industry in the years ahead.

 

[unicorn40]

eCOGRA... not real good

After a ruling like this, I get the feeling eCOGRA will not be trusted by many players in the future.

It was pretty apparent that this complaint was given a 'quick once over' then the decision was made.

I get the strong feeling that eCOGRA will be finding in favor of the casinos far more often than in the players behalf.

This industry needs a responsible group to provide arbitration and regulation... and eCOGRA isn't it.

And in my opinion, the eCOGRA seal awarded to a casino means very little.

 

[spearmaster]

Slow down, people... you don't hang an operation on one apparent misstep.

eCOGRA certainly do not want to be on the wrong side of things - right is right, wrong is wrong - but sometimes things don't always go - or appear - as they seem.

I'm sure by now they are already revisiting the issue - let's see what transpires before we start the mudslinging.

 

[Casinomeister]

I haven't been around all that long but it seems to me that not a month goes by without some incident such as this flaring up across the forum boards. This industry has a long way to go yet.

Yet do you notice that it is usually the same players, over and over, that have these problems?

My two cents (I've been dealing with a couple of other projects - like Spear - I haven't gotten myself involved in this thread) These "escape clauses" are written into these casinos' Ts&Cs to bail them out when they feel that they've been wronged. Think about it: if any of you were running a casino, I'm sure you'd have the same type of clause to protect your business. So in my opinion that's a moot point.

I'm a bit baffled at the attack on eCOGRA. It seems that there are expectations to walk on water and turn water into wine, but no one but the big JC can do that, so what's the problem? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because you dont agree with a decision.

I've dealt with player issues for a long time. And believe you me, it ain't easy. Sometimes things are clear cut (fake IDs being used, player has 200 accounts, casino is broke, etc.), but sometimes things aren't as clear as they can be. There is the fog of certain terms and bonus rules, there is the intent of the player vs intent of the casino; player history, casino history, etc. etc. etc. A few of you haven't got a clue to what is involved when trying to decide what is right and what is wrong - and of course, a number of you do.

Dealing with player issues: there are a number of times that I confide with close associates to make sure that I am seeing things clearly. There have been several times that I felt that a player was wrong and should be tarred and feathered, but changed my mind after a couple of other opinions came into view, and visa versa.

What I am saying is that sometimes it helps to hash things out especially in situations like this. Obviously in this situation, a number of us have looked at this and have come to a conclusion that differs from eCOGRA's. Is that a reason to trash an organization and drag Tex Rees into the spotlight stating that she should be fired? That is BS. If thats the case, I should just pack my bags and turn Casinomeister into a dog food e-store.

Dirk, besides being critical on Tex's rapid response (as if she had it up her sleeve), perhaps you should acknowledge the fact that she is responsive and was there with answers (even though they were answers that you didn't like).

As and endnote: when arbitration fails (in your opinion) - when you feel that you have not been treated fairly (like how Dirk feels), the best route to take is hit a few of us privately to see if we can help. Jetset, Spear, I and a few others have close contacts throughout cyber-casinoland. To immediately bring it to the boards will only churn up controversy, casino thrashing, player bashing, spewage spewing - which is fine and dandy, but you wont get much done.

And you probably won't get paid either.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Just in from eCOGRA

Dear Steven,

After taking into consideration what has been said by many respected voices in the industry, we are now revisiting our decision.

Regards,

Tex Rees

Bryan - just to point out I was never critical of Tex's rapid esponse, Clayman asked how long they took to make the decision to which I simply replied.

Also the fact that it took her nearly two weeks to reply to my email fighting my case after they made their decision (and only after I chased it up) is certainly not timely (now that is me being critical ). She also failed to answer any of my points regarding meeting of terms etc - instead just sent me a short email stating the casino had exercised its right to not give me the bonus and she could not proceed any further.

I really felt that they took completely no notice to what I said - afterall it was the same as what I wrote here and it was pretty easy for everyone else to realise what the correct decisision was based on the facts.

In regards to sending a few of you PM's rather than bringing it to the boards - yes this may generally be a better way initially but I really felt this needed bringing to the boards. For eCOGRA to allow casino's to impose the 'right to refuse' term has massive consequences to all players and they need to be aware of this.

Personally I hope eCOGRA learn from this and become stronger and fairer - in my case I felt they just listened to what the casino said and made the decision.

BTW - I certainly feel safer playing online these days with the likes of eCOGRA and Montana around. Yes they will make mistakes from time to time, but hopefully they'll learn and get there in the end.

 

[caruso]

Bryan, gotta disagree with you on parts of that.

Dirk did exactly as he's supposed to. He didn't post straight off. He didn't contact you direct. He did as he was asked. He contacted Ecogra. The reason he wouldn't have then contacted you would be that you request that players complain to ECOGRA for Ecogra casino complaints. If you were to add "...but I will stand in the background as backup if you're not satisfied with the resolution" he may have held off and contacted you, but as things stand he followed the correct path - at least, the "officially correct" path.

The boards serve as a HUGE player backup facility when things go wrong, and when a player comes to the end of the line as he sees it, he should use them to publisize and bring pressure. Take that away from the players and you emasculate them. Players must retain a degree of "democratic rights" (quotation marks because these baords are all owned by someone and therefore not democratic as such) and NOT be limited to one-to-one communications with mediators / portals or whoever. History demonstates the power of the facility, and it should always be availed to the player when he feels it may be his last recourse. In my opinion, this posting was correct and by the letter.

Regarding that this may be regarded as an "acceptable blip" on the part of Ecogra: gotta disagree even more. We know the "promo drill" at this point. **Casino pays player and THEN bars him**; casino does NOT bar player BFORE paying him. This casino had ample opportunity to decide they didn't like the player's play and say sorry fella, he's your cash but no more from now on. They chose to do this AFTER he'd cashed in by way of stealing money that belonged to him by right. This is not a grey area, it's standard practice. Pay FIRST, bar SUBSEQUENTLY. Not bar first, pay never.

If this woman, acting as "player mediator" on behalf of a body as "reputable" as we are told Ecogra is does not no this simple fact of casino business, I don't see what's inappropriate about the suggestion she be "hung out to dry". This is not a tough call case. The casino pays him THEN bars him. A beginner player would know this. This is simple and clear-cut. Ecogra, it seems, doesn't know this. Let's ask ourselves why this might be.

 

[Casinomeister]

Dirk did exactly as he's supposed to. He didn't post straight off. He didn't contact you direct. He did as he was asked. He contacted Ecogra. The reason he wouldn't have then contacted you would be that you request that players complain to ECOGRA for Ecogra casino complaints. If you were to add "...but I will stand in the background as backup if you're not satisfied with the resolution" he may have held off and contacted you, but as things stand he followed the correct path - at least, the "officially correct" path..

Actually what I was getting at is that Dirk and every player out there are free to do as they want, but to get what you want, sometimes you need to approach things differently than running to the boards.

I'm not saying that bringing this to light is not acceptable; I like the boards - that's why I run one - it's good to hash things out in public. But by doing so, the result may not be what you want. That was one of my major points.

Boards are a great resource for players, this is a given, but they can also produce a lot of misinformation.

I was also making general comments on the nature of mediation, some of it applies to this situation - some not.

...If this woman, acting as "player mediator" on behalf of a body as "reputable" as we are told Ecogra is does not no this simple fact of casino business, I don't see what's inappropriate about the suggestion she be "hung out to dry". This is not a tough call case. The casino pays him THEN bars him. A beginner player would know this. This is simple and clear-cut. Ecogra, it seems, doesn't know this. Let's ask ourselves why this might be.

I still think that a lot of rushing to judgment is occurring here. We've only heard from Dirk concerning this one event. We don't know his player history or his relationship with the casino. And we are not privy to what sort of discussions have been taking place behind the scenes. You say "This is not a tough call case." Well sure it isn't if you've only heard from the player and read the Ts & Cs. We're not dealing with idiots here or people making knee jerk decisions. There is a reason for most everything.

By the way, perhaps you'd like me to introduce you to "this woman" while in London in a few weeks. Don't think you'll be inclined to hang her out to dry so quickly

 

[Casinomeister]

For eCOGRA to allow casino's to impose the 'right to refuse' term has massive consequences to all players and they need to be aware of this..

True - and a good point. I hope that casino T&Cs can be revisted and perhaps revised, but you also have to understand that it's a two way street. At the end of the day, what we want is fair treatment for the players and casinos operators. I hope this experience can enlighten everyone on the implications of these sort of clauses.

BTW - I certainly feel safer playing online these days with the likes of eCOGRA and Montana around. Yes they will make mistakes from time to time, but hopefully they'll learn and get there in the end.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[jetset]

Hello? Are we losing sight of what has just happened here as some of you continue to trash eCOGRA and it's FGA in none too courteous terms?

The dastardly, inflexible and operator-biased (that's sarcasm btw) eCOGRA has advised this player that his wish that this matter be revisited will be respected, and a new enquiry has been opened.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Hello? Are we losing sight of what has just happened here as some of you continue to trash eCOGRA and it's FGA in none too courteous terms?

The dastardly, inflexible and operator-biased (that's sarcasm btw) eCOGRA has advised this player that his wish that this matter be revisited will be respected, and a new enquiry has been opened.

I think people's points are that it should not have had to come to me posting in public forums for them to arrive at the decision (BTW they are only revisiting it) - I explained fully what the situation was and they flatly told me a 'no' within two hours of looking into my complaint. Even after I sent them a further email argueing my case they refused to do anything further.

They never attempted to address any of the points I raised and the correct solution is pretty straight forward for most to see - and not the one they came to.

The way they handled this situation certainly deserves criticism - however they do not deserve condemning purely on this (and I don't think anyone is)

Mistakes happen - but one as simple as allowing the casino to use that 'get out clause' is extremely worrying for all players I'm sure.

 

[amandajm]

If the info posted by Diggler is doctored out of all proportion, then obviously the comments in the thread are null.

Judging by the "apparent" replies from Tex Rees to the poster one can only be exasperated.

Am glad to see a rethink is under way, judged upon the information available at the moment.

 

[jetset]

The point is, Dirk that these folks are showing willing in trying to get your case resolved fairly - continued trashing is unwarranted in my view.

 

[Stanford]

eCOGRA replied

Hello? Are we losing sight of what has just happened here as some of you continue to trash eCOGRA and it's FGA in none too courteous terms? ...

a new enquiry has been opened.

This morning I was pleased to find an email from eCOGRA as well. I appreciate that they are revisiting this issue. They indicate it won't take long to reach a decision.

Thanks to all involved. I know the watchdogs of this industry have been quietly and effectively interceding on behalf of the player community as they have done many times before.

This particular decision really worried me as a precedent so again thanks to the watchdogs for their work and also to eCOGRA for being flexable and understanding the importance of this issue.

Stanford.

 

[Freudian]

I've dealt with player issues for a long time. And believe you me, it ain't easy. Sometimes things are clear cut (fake IDs being used, player has 200 accounts, casino is broke, etc.), but sometimes things aren't as clear as they can be. There is the fog of certain terms and bonus rules, there is the intent of the player vs intent of the casino; player history, casino history, etc. etc. etc. A few of you haven't got a clue to what is involved when trying to decide what is right and what is wrong - and of course, a number of you do.

There is no 'fog' here at all. Did the player do everything the casino ask of someone using this promotion? If the answer is yes it is blatantly clear that he deserves his money.

If the casino after that want to tell this customer he is not welcome to use this promotion anymore, that's fine. If the casino after that want to change their promotion (which they for some strange reason haven't, go figure), that's fine.

I'm all for taking the casinos side when someone tried to defrad them (multiple accounts etc). I am all for the casinos right to design their promotions as they see fit. But the only bonus abuse going on here is from the casinos side.

Lastly it is good to see eCogra revisiting this case. This issue is so central to player protection that a precedent like the one they set with their initial ruling would be highly damaging to player confidence.