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

[casino employee]

This thread brings up several interesting issues:

Although casinos do have clauses about bonus abuse in their terms and conditions, sound business practice should have dictated that a returning player (as opposed to an unknown, new 1st-time depositor) not be blocked from a bonus once he was eligible for it: the casino should have been aware of bonus-seeking patterns on the part of its players and then prevented them from being eligible to participate in the first place.

Yes, it sounds like Dirk's deposit-withdraw pattern was one of bonus seeking (and if someone at the casino had been paying attention, they may have considered blocking him from bonuses). But on the other hand, slots are a mindless game - the player has no control or influence over the outcome of the results such that it is difficult to call a repeat winner on slots a "bonus seeker". The fact that such a player even returns to try his luck is a good sign for the casino - that the player is willing to risk losing what he's won. My point is, this kind of game play on slots isn't the same as the bonus seeking bet patterns on BJ or poker.

(btw Dirk, "bonus abuse" doesn't mean "not following the terms and conditions". If you weren't following the T&C's you'd be ineligible for the bonus. "Bonus Abuse" is a broader concept: it's the deliberate use of a bonus in a manner that hurts the casino financially. That is, the bonus is given to compensate or encourage players to play; but bonus abuse is the use of a bonus to give its user a leg up against the casino as opposed to prolonging that user's entertainment time at the casino. From a business perspective, I think this is a fair way to describe "bonus abuse".)

Ecogra - as best as I know, supported and sponsored in some way by owners and managers of online casinos. It's a good step forward but it is not a true independent "third-party" as players would like to believe. And I think the hurried squeezing of hands under the table during the course of this thread underscores the fact that Ecogra's decisions can be soothed and changed by pressure from people with connections and vested interests with Ecogra.

I don't think reaching the final decision they made is rocket-science, and in the space of the two hours it took for Ecogra to originally respond, I think they should have reached the decision to pay him (and recommend to the casino to block him from future bonuses if he really is all that dangerous on slots).

 

[cipher]

Tex has confirmed a change in decision.



Thanks for your help everybody

Hi Dirk:

Glad to see that this issue has been resolved. Hopefully eCOGRA will choose to enlighten the player community as to why they reversed their original decision. If in fact they did reverse their decision at all. Have a good one.

 

[caruso]

I also want to know what caused this about-face. No facts changed. The casino carries the "we reserve the right to screw you" clause which Ecogra invoked in backing the casino in this theft attempt. This rule has not changed, and it was for this that Ecogra abruptly found in the casino's favour.

So what did change?

Answers his own question: powers that be realized player knew the ropes and backed off.

No probs. As long as the boards continue to keep Microgaming-Ecogra in line, that's fine by me.

Sucks for the other 90% of players who don't read the boards, though. Oh well.

 

[jetset]

Casino Employee. With respect I think you may need to familiarise yourself a little more on eCOGRA. May I suggest that you visit the archives here and perhaps their site?

 

[casino employee]

You could say I have personal experience with the key founders/initiators of ecogra, so I know that there is a direct connection between the organization itself and the managers/owners of specific casinos that supported ecogra's establishment. I'm pretty sure the board of directors, if not chosen by those individuals, keeps in close touch with them and so is influenced to some degree by them (not necessarily a bad thing, btw).

I'm not denigrating ecogra, but as its about-face in this thread shows, it may not be pork but its procedures for reaching decisions isn't exactly kosher.

 

[Freudian]

Good decision by the casino and eCogra. I can only repeat Claymans questions. Without knowing more it is silly to speculate about the reasons for the change of mind. It can be anything from them not liking the public nature of the issue to them realizing they made a bad call initially.

As for eCogras independence. Let's just say I am not entirely sure they would have the independence to make a ruling that would cost a participating casino a lot of money, no matter how just the complaint is. Their initial decision here only reinforced that view.

On the online casino business in general I have a small set of principles:

It takes a great deal of trust from the players side to deposit and play at an online casino, due to the non-physicality of it. If a casino would want to abuse a player they would have a much bigger chance to do it online (ie, the casinos are all located where the player has zero legal rights, the player has no way to control the games are fair). The casinos have to realize the trust the players invest and not abuse it in any way. Once that trust is broken it is very hard to repair. This is why everybody who wants to see this business succeed must react with clarity and force whenever a casino tries to abuse a players trust (like in this case).

The coexistance of a player and a casino doesn't have to be all that complicated. The casino sets out a small clear set of fair rules. If the player follows them he get paid. If the player doesn't he doesn't get paid. Invoking a clause like Lake Palace did here is not using a fair rule. It is exploiting the trust Dirk had for them. On the other hand if Dirk would have had ten different accounts we all could agree he would have abused the trust of the casino.

It is not all that hard for a casino to act in a way that would maintain the trust the players have in them. There are online casinos that have done it for years. It is unacceptable that we ever accept casinos undermining that foundation of trust for the simple reason they don't want to pay a customer, despite knowing the customer did nothing wrong. When casinos act like that it just moves the entire industry closer to being on the wrong side of the used car business.

 

[spearmaster]

You could say I have personal experience with the key founders/initiators of ecogra, so I know that there is a direct connection between the organization itself and the managers/owners of specific casinos that supported ecogra's establishment.

Please show this connection. I for one would be very interested in this.

I was perhaps one of eCOGRA's first detractors, if not the first. I didn't believe what they had in mind could be done - but to date they have done a very good job and proven me wrong.

Although I may not always agree with them, I believe they are sincere in their objectives.

I'm pretty sure the board of directors, if not chosen by those individuals, keeps in close touch with them and so is influenced to some degree by them (not necessarily a bad thing, btw).

If you'd even bother to look at the board of directors, you'd see influential, impartial people who have been in this industry for a long time. Much of the success of the industry is due in part to the efforts of these individuals.

I'm not denigrating ecogra, but as its about-face in this thread shows, it may not be pork but its procedures for reaching decisions isn't exactly kosher.

Pretty tasteless, casino employee.

People make mistakes. At least eCOGRA is willing to revisit an issue and admit that their initial judgement may not have been correct - and in quite a short amount of time, I might add.

 

[bethug]

I am glad dirk got his money. The only thing that scares me is people that dont know about the forums. Cause if dirk didnt post about this , he would never got paid.

Pressure was the reason they change there mind. So how many people that has not got paid due to not knowing about forums?


Who check who at eCOGRA? is it left up to one person?

 

[Stanford]

Answers

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

Keep in mind that my appeal was strictly based on published eCOGRA standards and minimum requirements regarding misleading advertising. My argument was/is that using ambiguous undefined terms like bonus abuse to override specific promotional rules was misleading on its face. I view their response in context of my appeal.

The response didnt use the terms like bonus abuse or pattern of play. The response just recapped the facts regarding the number of deposits and associated bonuses. Then concluded the player had to be paid anyway because he met the terms of the promotion as offered. And noted that Lake Palace agreed. The precedent is that if a player plays by the rules, he has to be paid.

Clayman and Damien raise an interesting point. Are there other players that have not surfaced? It is a worry. But I have not seen any other case and I suspect that under the circumstances Lake Palace would be careful not repeat of this incident.

Obviously, I disagree with Casino Employee. Bonus abuse can be defined as some casinos do; I have seen them define it as removing a deposit after the bonus is credited and before meeting the wagering requirements. If not defined, it doesnt mean anything other than player fraud.

I dont seek to convince anyone of anything on the matter of legitimacy. But it is to the players advantage that eCOGRA succeeds. It is also to the seal holders advantage for the precise reasons listed by Freudian; a eCOGRA seal provides a seal holder a competitive advantage in the uncertain world of online gaming. But that advantage perishes if eCOGRA doesnt enforce their standards. They did in this case and everyone benefits. Even Lake Palace.

IMHO,
Stanford.

 

[casino employee]

Hi Ted, given the tight-nit and highly proprietary nature of the online gaming management community I'm sure you can appreciate that I won't be identifying myself or my connections here.

But I do have experience being in touch with you and other portal site managers as regards players complaints. And if the mechanics of the resolution of Dirk's problems are what they've been before, as a site currently promoting Lake Palace, you probably used your backchannels with them or ecogra to help resolve this issue.

But those external pressures are precisely the point I was making. Ecogra's board is highly esteemed but that doesn't mean that they are impartial, beyond external influence or even responsible for day-to-day decisions there. Many of them come from the gaming industry (their bread and butter), including from one of the key casino's (CON) represented by ecogra. And Casino on Net is ecogra's jewel in the crown; without them, the organization looks like a private Microgaming enterprise.

And when I factor in the traditional pressures of external portals (i.e. promoting Microgaming sites), or even pressure from one of ecogra's sponsors (Microgaming) itself on ecogra, it calls into question the organization's independence - and that charade, to me, is tasteless.

 

[Vesuvio]

(btw Dirk, "bonus abuse" doesn't mean "not following the terms and conditions". If you weren't following the T&C's you'd be ineligible for the bonus. "Bonus Abuse" is a broader concept: it's the deliberate use of a bonus in a manner that hurts the casino financially. That is, the bonus is given to compensate or encourage players to play; but bonus abuse is the use of a bonus to give its user a leg up against the casino as opposed to prolonging that user's entertainment time at the casino. From a business perspective, I think this is a fair way to describe "bonus abuse".)

This is just wishful thinking/deception - I doubt many players look at bonuses as a way of prolonging their 'entertainment' time. People play at on-line casinos because they want to make money. Anyone with a modicum of self-awareness knows they'll lose in the long run (except for bonus whoring/using successful systems, if they exist), but they still deposit with the hope of winning in that particular session. Losing at an on-line casino really isn't much fun at all. Gut wrenching might be a more accurate description, unless you've got enough cash not to care.

The only reason the player wants the bonus is to have a 'leg up against the casino'. The casino doesn't offer it to prolong anyone's entertainment - they just offer it to entice deposits, knowing that most people will lose the deposits even if the terms and conditions aren't too bad. The attempt to use 'bonus abuse' to cover accepting and playing a promotion is just casinos trying to have their cake and eat it.

 

[casino employee]

Hi Vesuvio, no, most players don't go to a casino to make money. If you're gambling at a casino as source of supplemental income, you're not there for the right reasons and you may not survive the experience a casino affords you.

For starters, the casino has a house edge against which - as you noted - you'll never win. Secondly, the reason for the sounds, flashing lights and visual extravagance is to entertain the people coming to a casino.

Yes, the casino wants you to stay put and spend your entertainment money there as opposed to going to a movie or doing something else. And yes, to a real gambler, there is a thrill in winning, pushing limits - and even in losing and experiencing a rush. Understanding that requires you to have a gambling mentality. Casino's want you to win, but they want to to win in the context of entertaining youself.

And the way they keep you there is either with free drinks and friendly hostesses (in a land-based casino), or with bonuses (at an online casino). For this reason, casinos have live chat and the multimedia representation of a real casino.

If you think gambling is a way to make money cut and dry, the only analogy to what you want to do is invest in the stockmarket, because the way the casino business is set up, it's unlikely you'll outlast the place your playing at.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE You could say I have personal experience with the key founders/initiators of ecogra, so I know that there is a direct connection between the organization itself and the managers/owners of specific casinos that supported ecogra's establishment.UNQUOTE

Of course there is, and that has never been a secret. MGS and CON (who have the bulk of the online casinos business) provided the funds to set up the eCOGRA infrastructure for a variety of useful reasons that are to the advantage of the player and the industry, as another poster has observed recently in this thread. At the same time they ensured that their involvement in operational decisions like Lake Palace was excluded by confining that authority to independent directors.

Your anonymity puts me at something of a disadvantage here, and presumably you were/are a Seal casino employee. That makes no difference to me - there are flaws in your statements on which you perhaps need to re-educate yourself as suggested earlier.

 

[spearmaster]

Casino employee - no one asked you to identify yourself LOL. I know how this industry goes.

That being said - let's say that you do indeed know the system (and I'm now betting you do). I can assure you that, in my case, no backchannel connections of any sort were used by me. All I did was simply lay out the case in the public forums. Although I will also acknowledge that I indeed have connections to the management there - they were not used because they were not necessary.

Now - I have this distinct feeling you know who eCOGRA's directors are but refuse to acknowledge that they have played a big role in the industry - and furthermore, do not wish to believe that they would not dare risk their reputations over a single bonus issue, especially of such a small amount in comparison to the amount of turnover in the system.

As for portals promoting Microgaming sites - if you are who I think you are, you of all people should know that I do not promote all Microgaming sites, and that I have never, ever been afraid to stand up to a Microgaming operator if I think they are in the wrong. So your allusion to some sort of a bias on my part is well out of order.

Yes, I am certainly not afraid to use my backchannel connections to get a result which should have been delivered in the first place. And I shall continue to do so to deliver a fair result for the player - just as I shall refuse to use said connections when I feel the player is out of order.

Given your stance, I will assume that you are not a member of eCOGRA for the reasons you have stated here. Whether that be because you do not wish to be bound by a fair-play body or not is anyone's guess.

I will assure you, however, if eCOGRA makes a wrong step in my opinion, I will not hesitate to let them know, just as I have in the past, and quite vocally for that matter - a simple search of the forums here will prove this fact. This is not about earning brownie points - this is about the same thing I said earlier in this thread.

Right is right - and wrong is wrong.

 

[jetset]

I should add to the above that on numerous occasions eCOGRA has made it clear that it welcomes any software provider's licensees providing they commit to its regulations and their authority to enforce same.

I think you may be seeing a few more companies on board in that regard this year.

 

[Vesuvio]

If you think gambling is a way to make money cut and dry, the only analogy to what you want to do is invest in the stockmarket, because the way the casino business is set up, it's unlikely you'll outlast the place your playing at.

For what it's worth I only play with the bonuses and do that instead of trading (stocks or sports results) as it's an easier moneyspinner, for now at least

Anyway, I agree with a lot of your points, but I don't think you can separate trying to win money and being entertained as clearly as you do. My point was also that for each session, and each bonus claimed, the player is trying to make a profit, despite the long term prospects. It still strikes me as unacceptable to use 'bonus abuse' to refer to players playing a promotion they're offered and meeting all the conditions attached. That particular phrase should be used only for multiple accounts, false IDs and so forth.

That said, it's good to hear well-articulated views from the casino's point of view.

Casino's want you to win, but they want to you to win in the context of entertaining youself.

I'm not sure I'd go that far They want you to win sufficiently often to keep you playing and losing - which is fair enough.

 

[mary]

I'm trying to figure out how DD got an advantage over the casino.

There's a 15X playthrough requirement on the bonus, so any game with a hold over 7% is going to eat that right up; Dirk played slots, not blackjack, so he gave them a fair shot.

If their slots pay out better than 93%, great, but they should be able to figure out that they designed a promo that gave an honest player an advantage.

This isn't rocket science. There are a lot of bridge players and coupon clippers who remember enough 5th grade math to figure this out without ever reading a message board.

 

[sirius]

I should add to the above that on numerous occasions eCOGRA has made it clear that it welcomes any software provider's licensees providing they commit to its regulations and their authority to enforce same.

I think you may be seeing a few more companies on board in that regard this year.

Do you really think so?

 

[jetset]

Yes I do...but you can call me out on it if it has not come about by end 2005 if your pessimism can wait that long.

 

[sirius]

Well I seem to have seen it all before. Why do they have to use so much marketing speak:

Relax, enjoy, play without worry - only where you see this Seal.

The software companies will have to pay but how does it work? Do they get their money back if they don't qualify? Also, I don't see how they can claim to be more independent by saying the casinos don't pay ("The operators (casinos) currently do not make any financial contributions to eCOGRA, which further enhances eCOGRA's ability to make a truly independent assessement of the casinos' eligibility for the Seal.
") but they will be funded by the software companies for the very same casinos.

How is eCOGRA's independence assured?

Through the structure of the Board of Directors. All decisions regarding how casinos are tested and who gets the Seals and what other software providers and casinos are admitted fall under the control of the three independent directors on the Board. This is clearly set out in the company's constitution. These are all eminent and well-qualified and experienced professional men. Most important of all - they are all independent of the funding entities.

There they are saying the decision makers are independent from the funding entities, so I suppose then it doesn't matter if the software company or the casinos pay.

They also seem to forget that no one has joined apart from the people who founded the organisation.

Furthermore, we estimate that our founding members already account for more than 70% of casino-style gaming on the Internet, which gives us a pretty good headstart by having the industry's leading software suppliers and operators committed to earning the Seal.

We believe we've already made a pronounced and very positive impact on the industry. We currently have 44 of the top quality casinos using some of the best and fairest gambling software on the market on our books and that number is certainly going to grow, probably with some rapidity.

 

[jetset]

If you can't find the answers to your questions on their site or for that matter in the archives here I suggest you email info@ecogra.org and ask Andrew Beveridge, the CEO - he's a very approachable guy.

But I'm surprised you haven't asked these questions before - they've been around since 2002.

BTW if I recall correctly the Seal casinos now number 51.

 

[Clayman]

BTW if I recall correctly the Seal casinos now number 51.

Who's the 51st? - they only have 50 listed on website. Have to keep my list current, you know!

Say, why do you think their Audit Committee or PWC or somebody can't just take a month/year of gameplay as part of their annual review and audit a casino's games for actual wins, losses, etc? I would think their databases must spit this stuff out daily. Compared to the utterly meaningless "payout" stat that casinos love to quote, I feel it would go a long way to reassuring the player community of the integrity of the games. Is it that the casinos will not allow this to be done? Or maybe just the data is not structured for such a review?

Or at least just for the card games and VP maybe? - I can see why they don't want the HA on slots public knowledge.

Just wondering out loud.

 

[jetset]

That sounds like a constructive suggestion to me, although I am not an expert in this area. How would you see the results being used, and why not send this suggestion on to the eCOGRA CEO?

 

[caruso]

This is nothing more than a diluted version of what I suggested over a year ago - that they publish actual STATISTICS of this "verification" process so as to at least go SOME way to legitimizing their claims in a public environment. Methods of process and results of process.

Of course, the methods could be fallacious and the results pure fiction, but it'd have been something.

Apparently, Ecogra/PWC didn't consider this necessary.

And back on-topic: I'm looking forward to feedback from Ecogra as to what caused them to change their minds on the Lake Palace issue.

 

[Stanford]

If their slots pay out better than 93%, great, but they should be able to figure out that they designed a promo that gave an honest player an advantage.

Hi Mary,

Here is something interesting. By eCOGRA rule all slots must have a minimum payout of 90%. But I am told the *majority* of slots do pay out greater than 95%. There is no way to know on a slot by slot basis. But I wonder if the player community could do some educated guessing as to which slots hold more and which less.

I also wonder how much the individual casino can affect the hold. Is the hold the same across every casino?

Stanford.