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

[Clayman]

How would you see the results being used, and why not send this suggestion on to the eCOGRA CEO?

Thanks for the simple straight-forward suggestion I wouln't have thought of

I just see it as a statistical check versus the theoretical HA of any given game. I'd love to see such a standard eventually replace, or at least supplement, that mostly-meaningless "pay-out" stat that contains the effects of bet-size variance. All they really would have to do is pretend each hand was played for $1. And, to present such data in $25 or $100 increments of bet ranges, might help alleviate the "big bet" theories.

Still, we wouldn't know the effect of incorrect play but I feel it would be a better measuring stick than what is currently presented.

OK back on topic.

 

[amandajm]

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.

It stands to reason the guy will make the right noises. I would rather ask you and anyone else a question here in public. That is what I do.
You told me to do my homework aside from other comments.

Ecogra's birth was partly funded by Microgaming.
The whole Ecogra thing stands on the shoulders of the TGTR.
The TGTR was created by Microgaming.

Aside Grief Club and CON, no others aside Microgaming firms have the Ecogra seal.
Grief Club and Con are Cassava powered.
Cassava partly funded the birth of Ecogra.

The only place on the net worthy of being called "TGTR INFO" is the Ecogra Q&A and your report here via infopowa. Even a casino reproduces your work as a report. Nothing on the

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

site for the public about TGTR.

There are no player representatives that I know of regarding Ecogra.

Tex Rees

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

people to this very board and WOL and G2B too ~ where I will ask my questions and concerns.

I was there from the

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

and I respect that you are convinced by these guys even though there is no player rep. Even though the player advocate has "just got it" after being told the score.

I reserve my right to be an extremist or even stand-offish and weary type of person where ecogra, micro and the tgtr are concerned..

I hope to be suitably impressed 1 day..

 

[Clayman]

I also wonder how much the individual casino can affect the hold. Is the hold the same no matter which casino is player?

I wonder too. I found it somewhat disturbing when virtualted said "On slots we can set the machine in basically the same way. Every machine is different, but can change the % from like 97% to 94%." I just don't like the idea of playing a game on Monday and the next day knowing it might be paying 3+% less than it did yesterday. Guess one is playing slots just choosing which slot machine to play

So, even if they were to list pay-outs on a slot-by-slot basis, it would likely be meaningless at best and deceptive at worst as they say "pays 97%" and then change it down to 94% the next day.

Of course that was RTG and this is Micro.

 

[jetset]

QUOTE Thanks for the simple straight-forward suggestion I wouln't have thought of UNQUOTE

I was not being facetious, Clayman. The simple truth is that if you feel you have a constructive suggestion to make you are more likely to develop a practical interaction with the guys actually making things happen at eCOGRA than you are amidst hostile speculation on message boards.

 

[Clayman]

I was not being facetious, Clayman.

I didn't think you were! My reply was not facetious either. Sometimes the obvious escapes me. So, thanks again for the suggestion. Sincerely.

 

[caruso]

Did they say on what basis they changed their decision?

Hopefully eCOGRA will choose to enlighten the player community as to why they reversed their original decision.

I also want to know what caused this about-face.

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

 

[Stanford]

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

I replied above. They changed it based on the basis that the player had accepted an offer and met the terms of that offer. Accordingly, he had to be paid.

Stanford.

 

[cipher]

Still waiting for this. On what basis did they change their decision?

Without LAKE PALACE and eCOGRA answering these questions, this whole fiasco is tantamount to robbing a bank, getting caught, giving the money back and expecting that everything is honky dorry when it's not. Have a good one.

 

[jetset]

I think you guys may be trying to find demons where there aren't any.

Stanford's told you what he knows, and as far as I can see the wrong call was made initially. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives, and this is the first dispute on which eCOGRA has made the wrong ruling as far as I am aware.

eCOGRA then showed sensitivity to what the players here and at WOL were saying and re-opened the enquiry, in the end ruling in favour of the player in view of his play within the T&Cs. It seems to me that shows a preparedness to listen to the players.

The player was presumably paid (Dirk?) and a useful precedent has been set in my view. That precedent is that the casino is responsible for it's T&Cs. If a player accepts an offer, plays and sticks to those T&Cs he or she should be paid all monies promised in the promo.

 

[Stanford]

Without LAKE PALACE and eCOGRA answering these questions, this whole fiasco is tantamount to robbing a bank, getting caught, giving the money back and expecting that everything is honky dorry when it's not. Have a good one.

My analogy is more of rendering a decision, having it appealed and having it reversed. I think the precedent is very importent.

I think what players are missing is a critical statement for the initial behavior. Granted that would be nice, but it is more importent that the "bonus abuse" escape clause was given no weight during the appeal. It was not allowed to override the specific terms of the promotion.

Stanford.

 

[cipher]

I think you guys may be trying to find demons where there aren't any.

Stanford's told you what he knows, and as far as I can see the wrong call was made initially. We all make mistakes at some stage in our lives, and this is the first dispute on which eCOGRA has made the wrong ruling as far as I am aware.

eCOGRA then showed sensitivity to what the players here and at WOL were saying and re-opened the enquiry, in the end ruling in favour of the player in view of his play within the T&Cs. It seems to me that shows a preparedness to listen to the players.

The player was presumably paid (Dirk?) and a useful precedent has been set in my view. That precedent is that the casino is responsible for it's T&Cs. If a player accepts an offer, plays and sticks to those T&Cs he or she should be paid all monies promised in the promo.

Hi Jet;

To be specific Jet, I'm trying to understand why eCOGRA and Lake Palace both seem to be constantly given a pass on this issue. Rather than putting someone of substance on this site for the purposes of fielding some very valid questions rather than relaying dialogue through second and third partiees. Have a good one.

 

[Clayman]

I wasn't wondering so much whether Dirk got paid but whether he was informed of the reasoning behind their reversal or only informed that he won his appeal. He is the complainant after all.

And of course when a casino is found guilty of not following its own T&C, I'd like to think that maybe ecogra would on its own initiative broaden its initial investigation of the casino in question for further evidence of non-compliance with this rule.

 

[caruso]

Cipher, exactly. The robbery analogy is a provocative one, but essentially correct.

This was not an "appeal". An appeal goes through a different process and is heard by different people. Those different people then reinforce / overturn the original decision, based on whatever new facts may have come to light. Appeals are not carbon copy reruns of a trial, heard by the same judge and the same jury and based on identical evidence. If they were, the concept wouldn't exist - because no appeal would ever succeed. This was in no way an "appeal", and to dress it up in such "legal" terminology is to give it a slant which is quite the contrary of what it deserves.

but it is more importent that the "bonus abuse" escape clause was given no weight during the appeal.

Then why did those SAME people, who reversed their OWN decision, TAKE THE DECISION IN THE FIRST PLACE?? "No weight" to "total weight"?? What changed their minds?? Would anyone who seeks to curry favour with, promote or otherwise talk up Ecogra care to offer an explanation?

**The decision to overturn the original decision was made exclusively as a result of pressure created by the public posting and nothing else.** No subsequent facts were discovered and absolutely nothing changed. No skeletons were found in any cupboards. Player complained publically / received rightful backing / casino caved in. This is not remotely "a precedent", as Stanford has tried to suggest, by way of dressing this up as something somehow "developmental" in the business; this has been going on since the first player complained on the first forum about the first casino rip off. It happened with Gaming Club, English Harbour, Angelciti, and now Ecogra.

Until something tangible can be offered to explain WHAT changed, WHAT specifically caused this about-face, this remains old news and business as usual in casino land.

 

[padanian]

Cipher, exactly. The robbery analogy is a provocative one, but essentially correct.

This was not an "appeal". An appeal goes through a different process and is heard by different people. Those different people then reinforce / overturn the original decision, based on whatever new facts may have come to light. Appeals are not carbon copy reruns of a trial, heard by the same judge and the same jury and based on identical evidence. If they were, the concept wouldn't exist - because no appeal would ever succeed. This was in no way an "appeal", and to dress it up in such "legal" terminology is to give it a slant which is quite the contrary of what it deserves.



Then why did those SAME people, who reversed their OWN decision, TAKE THE DECISION IN THE FIRST PLACE?? "No weight" to "total weight"?? What changed their minds?? Would anyone who seeks to curry favour with, promote or otherwise talk up Ecogra care to offer an explanation?

**The decision to overturn the original decision was made exclusively as a result of pressure created by the public posting and nothing else.** No subsequent facts were discovered and absolutely nothing changed. No skeletons were found in any cupboards. Player complained publically / received rightful backing / casino caved in. This is not remotely "a precedent", as Stanford has tried to suggest, by way of dressing this up as something somehow "developmental" in the business; this has been going on since the first player complained on the first forum about the first casino rip off. It happened with Gaming Club, English Harbour, Angelciti, and now Ecogra.

Until something tangible can be offered to explain WHAT changed, WHAT specifically caused this about-face, this remains old news and business as usual in casino land.

:notworthy

 

[Stanford]

This was not an "appeal"...Appeals are not carbon copy reruns of a trial, heard by the same judge and the same jury and based on identical evidence." ...

Then why did those SAME people, who reversed their OWN decision, TAKE THE DECISION IN THE FIRST PLACE??...

All analogies fail in some respect or they would not be analogies. However, appeals often involve a rerun of the same "trial". In this case, it was the same organization and different people. The decision came from the CEO and not the mediator. However, even if that wasnt true, I appealed to the organization because I thought they were outside their own rules. "Appeal" is the word eCOGRA used and seemed right to me.

As to why they made it in the first place, I suspect it was an error. I have seen that error made before on this very forum and by players.

**The decision to overturn the original decision was made exclusively as a result of pressure created by the public posting and nothing else.**

Was public pressure the cause of the reversal rather then a re-examination of the facts? I can't read minds so I don't know. I intuit examination of the facts was determinative because I believe the facts clearly support the player's position; I don't think it was a close call. Additionally, the response was quick while public pressure was still building and it promised resolution in 24 hours. That differs than the Omni and Gaming Club case where public pressure had to build first.

However, I would urge players to keep up the pressure in future protest. It can't hurt. Players need to band together every time. I feel like they don't now as much as they did a few years back.

This is not remotely "a precedent", as Stanford has tried to suggest, by way of dressing this up as something somehow "developmental" in the business; this has been going on since the first player complained on the first forum about the first casino rip off. It happened with Gaming Club, English Harbour, Angelciti, and now Ecogra.

"Developmental" is not my word. Actually, it would have been the reversal of precedent. As you point out, we have seen this bonus abuse escape clause brought up before. Had eCOGRA stood by the initial mediation that would have been a reversal of what has been achieved in the prior decisions such as Gaming Club.

However, to do so they would have to violate their own standards. They didn't and that is a good thing. Had they stubbornly persisted nothing good would have come of it for anyone.

imho,
Stanford.

 

[cipher]

Hi Stanford:

All in all Stanford, you're to be commended on your painstaking efforts in this regard. There surely would not have been any kind of a resolution had you not taken the proverbial bull by the horns or so to speak. Have a good one.

 

[jetset]

All analogies fail in some respect or they would not be analogies. However, appeals often involve a rerun of the same "trial". In this case, it was the same organization and different people. The decision came from the CEO and not the mediator. However, even if that wasnt true, I appealed to the organization because I thought they were outside their own rules. "Appeal" is the word eCOGRA used and seemed right to me.

As to why they made it in the first place, I suspect it was an error. I have seen that error made before on this very forum and by players.

Was public pressure the cause of the reversal rather then a re-examination of the facts? I can't read minds so I don't know. I intuit examination of the facts was determinative because I believe the facts clearly support the player's position; I don't think it was a close call. Additionally, the response was quick while public pressure was still building and it promised resolution in 24 hours. That differs than the Omni and Gaming Club case where public pressure had to build first.

However, I would urge players to keep up the pressure in future protest. It can't hurt. Players need to band together every time. I feel like they don't now as much as they did a few years back.

"Developmental" is not my word. Actually, it would have been the reversal of precedent. As you point out, we have seen this bonus abuse escape clause brought up before. Had eCOGRA stood by the initial mediation that would have been a reversal of what has been achieved in the prior decisions such as Gaming Club.

However, to do so they would have to violate their own standards. They didn't and that is a good thing. Had they stubbornly persisted nothing good would have come of it for anyone.

imho,
Stanford.

I can't think of anything I would add to your reply here, Stanford which is fair and balanced imo - unlike some of the usual hostile assumptions that have been made by Caruso.

I believe that Stanford deserves positive recognition for taking it upon himself to do something about this situation instead of merely posting about it. The businesslike manner in which he broached the subject direct with the eCOGRA CEO seems to have had the desired effect in getting the case reopened and the achievement of a reversal of the earlier, flawed decision.

That is a constructive result that sets a precedent for other players prejudiced in this manner in my personal view and adds to the value of Stanford's initiative here.

I would like to see Dirk posting whether he has been paid or not, though as confirmation that the ruling has been followed by the casino. It will also be interesting to see if the casino amends it's offer to avoid further hits by savvy players.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Just to confirm I did receive the full bonus as promised.

IMO I think we should give eCOGRA the benefit of the doubt for now - at least I will be doing so.

Yes I was extremely dissapointed (and amazed TBH) that they came up with the original decision that they did. But I believe everyone deserves a second chance.

DD

 

[Freudian]

Just to confirm I did receive the full bonus as promised.

IMO I think we should give eCOGRA the benefit of the doubt for now - at least I will be doing so.

Yes I was extremely dissapointed (and amazed TBH) that they came up with the original decision that they did. But I believe everyone deserves a second chance.

DD

For us to give them the benefit of the doubt we have to believe there was some other reason than the public nature of the issue that lead to the reversal.

If not, I see no reason to celebrate a phyrric victory. How many people in the same situation as Dirk have not complained publically and have had their money stolen?

If eCogra believes this is a precedent set with this decision, they should say so (for example by adding it to their FAQ). If not all we have established is that you need a lot of public pressure to get eCogra to do the right thing.

 

[caruso]

For us to give them the benefit of the doubt we have to believe there was some other reason than the public nature of the issue that lead to the reversal...How many people in the same situation as Dirk have not complained publically and have had their money stolen?

Bingo, brother. Took the words out of my mouth.

I wasn't aware that other parties in the organization had overturned the decision, as has now been suggested. That much does give the episode a marginally less seedy tone, insofar as it was somebody else (apparently) overturning the decision as opposed to a straight u-turn by this player-mediator, or whatever her "job description" is.

I'm glad that Ecogra will give me a fair hearing when I post a complaint on the most prominent online casino forum, the same as Angelciti also ended up giving me a fair hearing, the same as English Harbour ended up giving the boys a fair hearing, the same as Gaming Club ended up giving them a fair hearing, the same as Cirrus ended up giving me a fair hearing. I'm glad to know I form part of that eight percent of online gamblers to whom Ecogra will show respect.

It remains pretty lousy bad luck for the remaining 92%.

Or did Ecogra base their change of heart on subsequent facts?

Or was it just another red-faced casino u-turn?

And why don't Ecogra post a statement, or at least have one posted by their representative here? "We tried to assist our client in pulling a fast one over a customer, realized we'd made one BAD mistake and did a 360 degree u-turn so fast some of us are still spinning".

Something along those lines.

 

[jetset]

Caruso, once - just once - I would like to see you step down from your soapbox and do something constructive about solving problems instead of the continual stream of unsubstantiated assumptions and accusations in which you appear to revel.

A uninvolved player nevertheless concerned at an unfair decision took the time and trouble to write an objective, polite and businesslike letter to the organisation responsible for the flawed decision. As a consequence, a more senior person in that organisation reopened the case and reversed, to the player's advantage the earlier decision. He then replied to Stanford's letter advising him of the result of his correspondence, and the player has been paid what was rightfully due to him.

Had you bestirred yourself beyond the borders of this message board and followed Stanford's example you would, I am sure have been extended similar courtesy.

I am beginning to suspect that you were hoping eCOGRA would be inflexible and refuse to stand up for the player so you would have something to get your teeth into in one your hostile rants. Fortunately they are somewhat fairer and more professional than that, although I doubt you will ever exhibit sufficient tolerance and flexibility yourself to recognise it.

 

[m249a]

As a consequence, a more senior person in that organisation reopened the case and reversed, to the player's advantage the earlier decision. He then replied to Stanford's letter advising him of the result of his correspondence, and the player has been paid what was rightfully due to him.

Who was the more senior person in the organisation that reversed the decision? Did this information come as a result of an official press inquiry? If so will your newsletter carry the story in the next publication? That would be some very interesting reading indeed! An exclusive interview with ECOGRA, after the decision was reversed. That level of transparency certianly would add to their reputation.

 

[jetset]

I believe that Stanford has already revealed that the person who corresponded with him was the CEO, Andrew Beveridge. In any event that would have to be the case, because the FGA is not a junior position in the organisation.

I hope I am wrong in sensing a degree of enmity in your post here M249. If that is a consequence of your association with a certain webmaster who has been behaving very irresponsibly of late it would be a pity because I have always respected your views and the balance that you exhibit in them.

As to reportage on this now resolved matter in our news service, that is an editorial decision that is my remit, but I will say that the facts will be reported as they have been here now that this issue has been signed off by the complainant as resolved.

 

[m249a]

I believe that Stanford has already revealed that the person who corresponded with him was the CEO, Andrew Beveridge. In any event that would have to be the case, because the FGA is not a junior position in the organisation.

I hope I am wrong in sensing a degree of enmity in your post here M249. If that is a consequence of your association with a certain webmaster who has been behaving very irresponsibly of late it would be a pity because I have always respected your views and the balance that you exhibit in them.

As to reportage on this now resolved matter in our news service, that is an editorial decision that is my remit, but I will say that the facts will be reported as they have been here now that this issue has been signed off by the complainant as resolved.

Way off base my friend.......I enjoy reading your newsletter, and based upon the number of hits and replies this thread has gotten since it started I was thinking it might be worth a mention in your newsletter. Please do not ever think that I would be so hasty as to stab you in the back after all the help you gave me in the past.

 

[jetset]

That is pleasing to me - I was being over-sensitive.