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

[cipher]

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.

On the "flip side" of this issue, had Dirk lost all oh his deposited funds (regardless of the amount deposited) I don't think eCogra or Lake Palace would have been in the least bit concerned about keeping his money and not a word of anything that's been said in this thread would have even been mentioned. All in all it would have just been another day in Paradise for Lake Palace and eCOGRA and of that there is no doubt. Have a good one.

 

[Freudian]

On the "flip side" of this issue, had Dirk lost all oh his deposited funds (regardless of the amount deposited) I don't think eCogra or Lake Palace would have been in the least bit concerned about keeping his money and not a word of anything that's been said in this thread would have even been mentioned. All in all it would have just been another day in Paradise for Lake Palace and eCOGRA and of that there is no doubt. Have a good one.

Of course not, they would allow him to deposit once again and use this bonus. It's not abuse until he makes money, you know.

 

[bethug]

"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."





If he came to you in private, would you have told what happen? So other players can make a choice to play there or not? Dirk went to the direct source, the turn him down flat. He came to the forum and now they take notice after emails. We adults here and we need to know if casinos are acting up and be told upfront so we want get burnt.

Dirk I am sure you will get paid.

 

[Vesuvio]

The oddest thing about this is that in Dirk's case it doesn't even seem to have been advantage play.

If you assume a 95% return for slots that equates to losing 300 wagering the deposit (6000) & then another 900 wagering the bonus 15 times.

So you're expected to lose 1200, or the exact same amount as the bonus. Of course if you played the deposit through with BJ it's a different matter, but the variance of slots makes a bonus as low as 20% of the deposit very dangerous, unless you're allowed to withdraw the deposit after the bonus gets credited.

Unless I'm missing something

 

[Clayman]

It's not abuse until he makes money, you know.

I was wondering before, Dirk, whether you have actually been unlucky enough to be a net winner on this particular promotion? How many times have you played it? Would you be able to say what your payback % has been assuming bonus money was your own? If you don't want to answer any/all, no problem at all.

Regardless of whether Ecogra ultimately rules in your favor or not, and I hope and believe they will, I hope they discuss their decision in relation to that "The seal holder will ensure that players are not mislead through advertising or promotional activities, and will ensure that the terms and conditions of their promotions are followed." clause rather than issue a decision with no comment. Surely it's this clause they are "re-visiting".

 

[Clayman]

Unless I'm missing something

I feel like Bryan when no one reads his posts. See post #34


We must be twin sons of different mothers

 

[Vesuvio]

I feel like Bryan when no one reads his posts. See post #34


We must be twin sons of different mothers

I knew I was missing something! At least you're not an ex-drill sergeant

It is a curious case, though. Perhaps they really were just worried by the size of the deposit & that Dirk had some self-discipline - I'd guess most people playing on-line casinos with that amount of cash are happy just to throw it away on slots without a second thought & see bonuses as a minor inconvenience delaying the inevitable

 

[paul02085]

I think ecogra will change their decision and Dirk will get his bonus.

What is disturbing to me is that they ever arrived at their initial decision. As "experienced" in this business as they supposedly are, how could they initially deny Dirk's complaint?
If experienced people come up with these kinds of decisions, it will cripple their reputation. This is a simple easy to understand complaint. There is NO excuse for ruling as they did.

As i said before, i think ecogra will change their decision, but as for Lake Palace trying to pull this stunt and then being forced to change it not of their choosing will not bode well for their future.

 

[Casinomeister]

If he came to you in private, would you have told what happen? So other players can make a choice to play there or not? Dirk went to the direct source, the turn him down flat. He came to the forum and now they take notice after emails. We adults here and we need to know if casinos are acting up and be told upfront so we want get burnt.

Dirk I am sure you will get paid.

If you would carefully read what I wrote, you would have realized that I was making a generalization - you = second person plural - not Dirk specifically.

If he came to me in private, I would have done what I could do, and regardless on the outcome either I or Dirk could have said something, or request changes in the T&Cs, played tiddly-winks, or we could have baked a cake. Who knows?

 

[virtualted]

changing gears slightly

In monitoring the different forums as well as my own casino, it seems like the majority of casino complaints come from how the terms and conditions are written and interpreted. There are complaints on slow pays, but that is something that is 100% the casinos responsibility.
What I am proposing is some type of approval board, not like safe bet or even Ecogra. That would review each casinos terms and conditions, and would agree that they were acceptable. You can read one casinos terms and they can be completely different from another casino in the same family. I know it is impossible "to legislate ignorance" by making customers read the terms and conditions before playing. I have read my own terms and conditions in the past and have been baffled by the ambiguous and misleading terms. So what if a Casinomeister, Caruso, Jetset, Spearmaster, and some complete newbies, evaluated a casino's terms and conditions and signed off on them that they were correct and accurate, but in NO WAY endorsing the casino, just certifying the terms and conditions. Also in this way the casino could not make any changes to these rules without prior approval. This is only a suggestion that I think would improve the industry in the long run.
Bryan, sorry to move from the topic of this thread, would be happy if you would start something new with this if there is interest.

Ted

 

[jetset]

The oddest thing about this is that in Dirk's case it doesn't even seem to have been advantage play.

If you assume a 95% return for slots that equates to losing 300 wagering the deposit (6000) & then another 900 wagering the bonus 15 times.

So you're expected to lose 1200, or the exact same amount as the bonus. Of course if you played the deposit through with BJ it's a different matter, but the variance of slots makes a bonus as low as 20% of the deposit very dangerous, unless you're allowed to withdraw the deposit after the bonus gets credited.

Unless I'm missing something

I think this is an interesting question, which Clayman has asked as well. Perhaps the most pragmatic answer lies in Dirk's hands - over the four previous weeks when he availed himself of this promo (and that would seem to indicate it was worth the effort) what was his profit?

 

[jetset]

Virtual Ted, count me out. No offence intended, but I don't see that working in practical terms, and I am not prepared to consign eCOGRA to the dustbin over this particular and isolated incident.

I have interacted with the eCOGRA people and they are not the fools some here would like you all to believe. Regardless of the outcome here I am quite sure that lessons will have been learned and remedies will be put into place, as is the case in most professionally managed outfits.

 

[Stanford]

Perhaps the most pragmatic answer lies in Dirk's hands - over the four previous weeks when he availed himself of this promo (and that would seem to indicate it was worth the effort) what was his profit?

It won't tell you much. There is a lot of variance with slots. A slot machine with a 5% hold and no variance is just a broken changer that returns 95 cents for every dollar. Variance is what provides the gamble.

The real question (as Vesuvio and Clayman pointed out) is what is the expected value. The 5% hold for slots is just an estimate. But whatever it is there isn't a lot of EV in this deal the way Dirk was playing it. The fact is, Dirk was not playing optimally. (If anyone has an idea what the hold is on various MG slots please PM me. I would love to know.)

Some of the best thoughts I have seen are by Cypher and M249a (at the union site).

M249a picked up on this comment from the casino:

"I have been monitoring you account over the past few weeks and confirm
that we have every right not to credit your account with the 20% cash back bonus."

And concluded that if the casino has been monitoring the account as claimed, they could have alerted the patron as to what they wanted prior to the player depositing.

Cypher noted that if the player had lost, the casino would have been happy to take his money.

Taken together, a casino policy of monitoring an account and then acting based on which way the ball bounced is not very appealing.

I think eCOGRA will do the right thing. I suspect they had a bad day. We all have had them. It isn't going to be easy for them to fix, and I think we should applaud them when they do.

Stanford.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE And concluded that if the casino has been monitoring the account as claimed, they could have alerted the patron as to what they wanted prior to the player depositing. UNQUOTE

That is a very valid point - if they were watching the account why didn't they put a stop to Dirk's activities before he hit them for the fifth time?

 

[Freudian]

I have interacted with the eCOGRA people and they are not the fools some here would like you all to believe. Regardless of the outcome here I am quite sure that lessons will have been learned and remedies will be put into place, as is the case in most professionally managed outfits.

No doubt they are no fools. But they are more tied to the casinos (and mainly one software developer) than I would like any kind of pseudoregulatory body to be. The reason we have eCogra is that the casinos wanted to have a eCogra.

 

[cipher]

QUOTE And concluded that if the casino has been monitoring the account as claimed, they could have alerted the patron as to what they wanted prior to the player depositing. UNQUOTE

That is a very valid point - if they were watching the account why didn't they put a stop to Dirk's activities before he hit them for the fifth time?

Hi Jet: the reason they (the casino) didn't put a stop to Dirk's activities is exactly the same reason Hampton and Delano did'nt put a stop to Pirate's activities. They thought they could beat Dirk and when they couldn't they chose the weasels way out. Have a good one.

 

[spearmaster]

I have read my own terms and conditions in the past and have been baffled by the ambiguous and misleading terms. So what if a Casinomeister, Caruso, Jetset, Spearmaster, and some complete newbies, evaluated a casino's terms and conditions and signed off on them that they were correct and accurate, but in NO WAY endorsing the casino, just certifying the terms and conditions.

VirtualTed, that's what you hire CONSULTANTS for.

 

[bethug]

There only one out come to this matter give dirk his money. No fraud was found, he bet the casino at the game they laid out and even did it on slots.
Pay the man.

I agree with Freudian, they have mainly micro casinos and the other two are con.

Yes, they did good on some issues, but this one should have been no question.


And it should not take a week to come up with a decision.

lake palace will not get my money, nor its sister casinos. If they pull stuff like this

 

[jetset]

syntax correction

No doubt they are no fools. But they are more tied to the casinos (and mainly one software developer) than I would like any kind of pseudoregulatory body to be. The reason we have eCogra is that the casinos wanted to have a eCogra.

Freudian, I respect your controlled posts here although I do not at all times agree with their content - that's the nature of the fora.

Having said that, I am not going to waste another two weeks in a dreary if at times aggressive debate here on eCOGRA with people like yourself, who have as entrenched a view of this organisation's value to the industry as my own - just opposite and perhaps more pessimistic.

I doubt that such attitudes will slow eCOGRA's progress down, although it may poison a few fora members' minds until they have need of its services.

I would suggest that those who were not here on the previous debates, and who are sufficiently interested in the detail go to the archives and draw their own conclusions from the diverse views expressed there in previous confrontations on this player protection body.

To those who have already decided that even a reversal of the eCOGRA ruling will not improve their view of the initiative...so be it, your minds are made up and that's your prerogative.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Tex has confirmed a change in decision.

Dear Steven,

Lake Palace Casino has decided to pay you the $1,200.00 bonus.

Regards,

Tex Rees

Thanks for your help everybody

 

[paul02085]

Good that they are gonna pay you Dirk.

Re Lake Palace- not playing there (just like Omni).

Re Ecogra- hopefully they will be more careful in the future before making decisions such as this original one, but glad they did the right thing in the end.

 

[amandajm]

Good for you Diggler.

Lake Palace have decided to pay you is what it says.

I take it that means Ecogra never changed their ruling?

 

[Stanford]

It's resolved

Tex has confirmed a change in decision.

I also received an email from eCOGRA reversing their previous decision.

eCOGRA isn't a player body. They attempt to stand somewhere in the middle between player and casino and regulate via their seal. The standards and minimum requirments for eCOGRA seal holders scripted this outcome in advance.

I am please to see those standards enforced. I know reversing an error is much more difficult than making a correct call the first time. That they did so quickly is to their credit.

Good job eCOGRA. Congratulations Dirk. And to all the watchdogs who without credit provided guidance to eCOGRA, many thanks on behalf of the player community.

Stanford.

 

[jetset]

This is a sound and fair decision and I am glad that eCOGRA has shown independence and conscience in reversing a faulty decision when circumstances are re-examined.

No, eCOGRA is not a player body per se; it is a regulator but its stated purpose is the protection of players through fair and efficient treatment by the Seal casinos that it regulates.

Other than that, I have no argument with Stanford's comment: QUOTE: They attempt to stand somewhere in the middle between player and casino and regulate via their seal.UNQUOTE

Before one of the critics steps in asking for details of the reversed decision, what did the email from eCOGRA tell you Stanford?

 

[Clayman]

I also received an email from eCOGRA reversing their previous decision.

Did they say on what basis they changed their decision? I mean did they determine in this particular case that this particular "pattern" of abuse wasn't really abuse in this case which would allow for a different "pattern" to be called abuse later? Or did they say the casino erred in not following the terms of its own promo? Have any principles been established or has the staus-quo merely been maintained?

Does eCOGRA in general make public its decisions or are they just between complainant and eCOGRA?

Do we know if eCOGRA looked into whether any other players have been denied the bonus who maybe just accepted the casino's decision? Tex did say "eCOGRA do inspect these incidents during the casino review to ensure that there was a valid reason for the action taken." Have such reviews ever found a player was improperly denied a bonus? I guess I would have hoped eCOGRA in a case like this would broaden it's investigation and ask the casino things like "show me the records of all players who have played this promotion 4 times", etc. but it seems unlikely to me anything of the sort was or will be undertaken.

Anyway I'm glad eCogra's intervention somehow helped a casino make a simple straightforward business decision they should have made in the first place if their management had a clue by giving a bonus with a small expected value.

Be careful what you wish for Dirk - you now get to wager 18000 pounds on slots Good luck!