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

[Dirk Diggler]

Well I can't believe casinos are still trying to do this, but Lake Palace (Microgaming software, part of the Grand Bay/Bella Vegas group) has refused to give me a bonus AFTER I met the wagering requirement to receive it.

They advertised an unlimited 20% bonus that to receive you needed to wager your deposit once on slots, and they would add it the following Monday. So I deposited 6,000 and played this through on slots.

They didn't credit it on Monday, and after over a week of emailing them regularly they finally gave me an answer as to why not citing 'bonus abuse' and saying:

Please refer to point g of the terms and conditions on our website:

LAKE PALACE CASINO reserves the right to change the offer, adjust the bonus terms and conditions, or deny a proportion of the bonus.

I asked for clairification as to how they believed I had abused their promotions to which they replied:

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.

You have a distinct pattern in which you purchase and cashin your tokens. Let me
explain further.

As you are aware, the 20% cash back works on a weekly basis and is based on
all purchases less cashins made during that period ie Sunday to Saturday.
Please look at the file attached. Notice the distinct pattern of purchasing and
cashing in and let me know whether I am incorrect in stating that bonus abuse is
occuring....

to which I replied:

Hi Sally,

Of course bonus abuse is NOT happening. For bonus abuse to be happening I must be not complying with your terms and conditions.

If you claim it is then I can't be complying with them all - if that is the case please explain to me what I aren't complying with?

The bottom line with this is that you advertised a bonus to me which required me to wager first to receive it. I did this and then you refused to give it to me.

Now, you have every right to exclude whoever you wish from any promotion - however you should inform players prior to them taking part that they are excluded. If you advertise an offer as being open to all players and a player meets the terms to get the bonus then they should receive it if you haven't previously informed them they are excluded (which you obviously didn't with myself).

For the record I have never failed to comply with any of their terms and conditions.

After this I thought the best way forward was to complain to Ecogra - after all they are a 'independent' aren't they?

So I explained the situation to them and Tex Rees contacted me with:

I received a copy of your account from the casino and have done a review of your play. There is a definite pattern that emerges when a bonus is in question. Bearing this is mind, it is my opinion that the casino is within its rights not to credit your account with the bonus. Please note that all casinos have a clause in their Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) that informs players of their right to suspend or close any account at their discretion or to deny any player a bonus. eCOGRA do inspect these incidents during the casino review to ensure that there was a valid reason for the action taken.

To which I replied with this:

Tex,

I haver NEVER failed to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the casino.

The casino advertised a bonus to me that required me to do wagering to receive a bonus. I did this and then they refused to give it to me.

Now, they have every right to exclude whoever they wish from any promotion - however they should inform players prior to them taking part that they are excluded. If they advertise an offer as being open to all players and a player meets the terms to get the bonus then they should receive it if they haven't previously informed them they are excluded (which they obviously didn't with myself).

To which Tex replied with:

I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to proceed any further with your query. The casino exercised its right, as set out in their Terms and Conditions to exclude you from a promotion.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

The thing what really dissapoints me about the whole situation is Ecogra - they are happy for a casino to use the standard get out clause 'the management reserves the right etc' which is really disgusting TBH and claim that making deposits and cashins in a 'certain pattern' amounts to bonus abuse.

Surely at least they should be aware that for bonus abuse to be happening a player must be breaking the terms and conditions - making deposits and cashins in a certain time/pattern certainly does not equal bonus abuse.

 

[bethug]

If that all to it, then they wrong. They should have gave you your bonus then told you cant play no more. How i see it if you played slots anyway and made thru alive you should get your bonus

"I am sorry to inform you that I am unable to proceed any further with your query. The casino exercised its right, as set out in their Terms and Conditions to exclude you from a promotion. "

In that case a casino dont have to give you a bonus or change its mind mid stream. Wow Ecogra seems to side with that bull crap term, all bonus lovers are doom.

 

[spearmaster]

Without being made aware of the "pattern" that has been described, I wouldn't be able to make much comment. But Tex seems to be very thorough in her research from what I've experienced - so something would have had to stick out like a sore thumb for her to reject the complaint.

Can you further clarify this?

 

[cipher]

Without being made aware of the "pattern" that has been described, I wouldn't be able to make much comment. But Tex seems to be very thorough in her research from what I've experienced - so something would have had to stick out like a sore thumb for her to reject the complaint.

Can you further clarify this?

I agree Spear. But we really need to know out what this "sore thumb" is. Have a good one.

 

[caruso]

I won't be rehashing my opinion of Ecogra in the interests of keeping the peace. I'll just say "quelle surprise", LOL.

That is nonsense. If they either 1) emailed you the deal or 2) advertised it to allcomers on the web site WITHOUT any exclusion specifically directed at you, then you are entitled to the bonus. That the casino is entitled to invoke the standard "we reserve the right to screw you" clause is total poppycock. ALL casinos maintain this clause, but only the CROOK casinos INVOKE it in order to deny a player a cashin / bonus or whatever when the player has followed all the rules. You fullfilled your side of the bargain. The casino, after the fact, decides not to fullfill theirs. They are in no position not to pay you. You have done nothing wrong. If they untimately do NOT pay you, then Lake Palace are to the best of my knowledge the first Microgaming group after Golden Palace to fail to come through for the player, and this will be big news.

LOL, I hope Bryan can bypass "Ecogra" on this one.

 

[kavaman]

Is there something wrong or am i missing the point?

The casino states:
As you are aware, the 20% cash back works on a weekly basis and is based on all purchases less cashins made during that period ie Sunday to Saturday.

Its not a bonus, its a cashback bonus. So you will get 20% of your net losses back. Did you lose the 6000 or part of it?

-kavaman

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Spearmaster - I cannot be exact about what they believe it is about my deposits/cashins that exibit 'bonus abuse', but I believe it is simply that I deposit, receive bonus, wager, and then withdraw. The same as what thousands of players do at every casino every day.

Nothing more complicated or sinister - I'm happy to email the excel spreadsheet they sent me to anyone who would like to see it, in fact I'd like to so you can see if you can find anything 'abusive' about it? Just pm me your email address and I'll forward it on.

Kavaman - the bonus is not a traditional cash-back bonus, its TOTAL deposits less TOTAL cashins for the previous weeks play that the bonus is given on i.e if you don't make any cashins you get it on your full deposit.

 

[spearmaster]

the bonus is not a traditional cash-back bonus, its TOTAL deposits less TOTAL cashins for the previous weeks play that the bonus is given on i.e if you don't make any cashins you get it on your full deposit.

Ah, I think I got it.

During the week, you make multiple deposits totalling $6000. You wager exactly $6000 on slots, and stop playing.

The problem is, you may have won money - but NOT cashed it out, nor played further - but simply waited 3,4 maybe even 5 days until Monday, hoping that you would get 20% of $6000.

Can you confirm that this is indeed what you have done?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

That is pretty much correct - I have played there several weeks previously and received the bonus each time with no problem.

The problem is, you may have won money - but NOT cashed it out, nor played further - but simply waited 3,4 maybe even 5 days until Monday, hoping that you would get 20% of $6000

Can I just ask why you think this is a problem? I cannot see why it is at all, the terms are clearly there for all to see and I complied with them.

BTW Once you have received the bonus you then have to wager the bonus 15 times on slots before you can withdraw it. The way the bonus works has not been debated by myself or the casino.

 

[spearmaster]

I'm only anticipating what I think the problem could be.

The alternative scenario would be:

Deposit. Play, win, cashout - wait for cashout, then deposit back in.

What I think they're pointing to is a pattern which clearly (in their mind) takes advantage of the casino. 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.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Fair enough - I have actually deposited again after being paid every time so equally this could be the problem.

Either way do you think that it is right of the casino to refuse the bonus after I have met the wagering and terms to receive it?

 

[Stanford]

The problem is, you may have won money - but NOT cashed it out, nor played further - but simply waited 3,4 maybe even 5 days until Monday, hoping that you would get 20% of $6000.

Can you confirm that this is indeed what you have done?

That isn't a problem. That is the promotion. Dirk has gone above the requirement. I have confirmed with Customer Service that the qualifying play does not have to be done on slots. Only the bonus has to be played on slots.

The only requirement is that the player wager his deposits once and not withdraw them as the bonus is calculated as 20% on net deposits to withdrawals.

Stanford.

 

[Stanford]

My email to Tex Rees

In that case a casino dont have to give you a bonus or change its mind mid stream. Wow Ecogra seems to side with that bull crap term, all bonus lovers are doom.

I agree. I have copied you on an email to Tex Rees. Maybe you can let the union take a swipe at talking to Lake Palace and/or Tex Rees. I suspect long-term players have a better sense of evolved protocol than a new moderator.

Here is the email I sent:

Dear Ms. Rees,

I draw your attention to the thread at CasinoMeister. I hope you will offer some clarification by posting there. The thread is titled "Lake Palace 'do an Omni' - Ecogra says casino is right to do so". I am posting this email there as well.

The player claims to have met the conditions of the promotion only to be denied the bonus retroactively based on bonus abuse. The player claims the eCOGRA supports such action.

I would be very disheartened if you have evoked a casino's obscure "bonus abuse" term in a mediation with an online casino. This term (bonus abuse) is ambiguous and should be unenforceable. A long-standing premise of any mediation is that ambiguous terms are construed against the drawer.

Further I call your attention to EGAP 113 that reads in pertinent part:

"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."

Additionally your minimum requirements specify (113.R.1):

"Advertising media and content as well as promotional activities shall comply with the letter and spirit of eCOGRA."

To allow this term to be invoked at will is a clear violation of eCOGRA rules. Such ambiguous terms used arbitrarily render all other terms void and advertisement is therefore misleading on its face.

I have passed this on to the new players union who I have suggested should model your commitment to defined standards. It is important that these standards be given meaning by rigorous enforcement.

What has started as a players dispute has now become a test of eGOGRA's legetimacy. If you insist that the term bonus abuse can be subjectively applied you will have failed that test. My hope is that there is some other legitimate reason for denying the player a bonus. The player community will be watching.

CC: Online Players Union

 

[dominique]

What I think they're pointing to is a pattern which clearly (in their mind) takes advantage of the casino. 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.

Huh?

I am thoroughly confused.

What's wrong with playing, winning, cashing out and redepositing? I do it all the time!

 

[Freudian]

Incidents like this is why this industry don't have a future unless there is some real regulation. All casinos have this "get out of jail" clause in their T&C but most have not used it much previously. Now they are starting to use it for the simple reason that they don't want to pay. And if eCogra won't lift a finger, it says a lot about the usefulness of that organization.

This whole "pattern of play" is just an invention of the casinos to get out of paying. If a player through his play does what the T&C of promotion ask of him, the pattern of play is what they should expect. They want him to do more? Add it to the T&C.

Casinos need to start realizing that when they make someone an offer, they have to honor it. If they can't afford it or don't want a particular customer have access to it, then don't offer it to him. It is very simple.

edit: I liked the mail you wrote, Stanford. Hopefully eCogra will see the undeniable logic of your argument.

 

[Clayman]

I won't be rehashing my opinion of Ecogra in the interests of keeping the peace. I'll just say "quelle surprise", LOL.

Well I'm sorry to say this is certainly a surprise to me having had a little more faith than you in Ecogra's ability to hold a casino to the published terms & conditions of an offer. But when you're right Caruso you're right.

I don't think I will be able to look upon them in the same way from here forward. Even reversing their decision will not change the permanent damage to their reputation inflicted by Ms. Rees decision to choose to uphold this bullcr*p bonus abuse clause rather than enforcing the truth in advertising clause.

And her intransigence in refusing to even discuss the matter further is not much different than the standard casino clause "No further discussions will be entered into." She should at least explain in detail the reasoning behind her decision and why this clause outweighs other possible interpretations.

Sad day indeed. The sherriff has left Dodge City and it's the Wild Wild West again.

Dirk - how much time elapsed between your filing with Ecogra and you being informed of their decision?

 

[jetset]

Ah, I think I got it.

During the week, you make multiple deposits totalling $6000. You wager exactly $6000 on slots, and stop playing.

The problem is, you may have won money - but NOT cashed it out, nor played further - but simply waited 3,4 maybe even 5 days until Monday, hoping that you would get 20% of $6000.

Can you confirm that this is indeed what you have done?

That looks like the situation to me - quite a good ROI all things considered! I cannot believe that casino managements do not study all the consequences of their promo designs which can be taken at a disadvantage, and put in place sensible precautions against those smart enough to exploit their mistakes.

However, I think in the casino's place on what I see here I would have paid Dirk off and written off his successful pattern as hard experience.

QUOTE As you are aware, the 20% cash back works on a weekly basis and is based on all purchases less cashins made during that period ie Sunday to Saturday. Please look at the file attached. Notice the distinct pattern of purchasing and cashing in UNQUOTE probably refers to Dirk's practice of using this promo before...and getting away with it.

However - if a player is given an offer, accepts it and plays to all the T&Cs, he or she should be paid. What the casino does about it's right of admission in regard to that player subsequently is another issue.

And please, let's not use this to take cheap shots at eCOGRA - they've done a lot of fair and sterling work, and none of us are perfect.

 

[Freudian]

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.

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.

Surely they can't design a promotion like this and expect the players would ruin their chance of getting the bonus by withdrawing at once? If they are not happy with the way this promotion is working they should change the terms.

jetset: No one is denying the hard work and usefulness of Tex Reese in the past. But cases like this one is a litmus test for them. When they make a poor decision it is only fair that we let them know it. If this is indeed the path eCogra chooses to take, I don't see them as having any real use in the future because of the precedent set.

 

[jetset]

BTW, Stanford I thought your letter to eCOGRA was well worded, too. Let's hope that this matter will be revisited, and soon.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

Clayman - The speed of Ecogra's decision was extremely quick.

They notified me (22nd Dec) within 24 hours that they had received my complaint and were looking into it - within two hours of receiving that they replied saying:

Dear Steven,

I received a copy of your account from the casino and have done a review of your play. There is a definite pattern that emerges when a bonus is in question. Bearing this is mind, it is my opinion that the casino is within its rights not to credit your account with the bonus. Please note that all casinos have a clause in their Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) that informs players of their right to suspend or close any account at their discretion or to deny any player a bonus. eCOGRA do inspect these incidents during the casino review to ensure that there was a valid reason for the action taken.

I sent a reply fighting my case (Also 22nd) to which they never replied, until I chased it up yesterday. They once again confirmed they were standing by their decision.

 

[caruso]

The words "cash back" might be causing confusion, because casinos use them to refer to both 1) percentage refunds of lost deposits and 2) normal deposit bonuses. The promo in question is NOT a loser's refund, it's a normal deposit bonus. Deposit - wager deposit - receive "cash back", ie. bonus. Then, wager on slots and withdraw (or whatever).

The question is not the nature of the bonus nor the validity of the claim, it's the behaviour of a formerly "reputable" casino in disqualifying a player who followed all the rules (they were simple enough) and committed no wrongdoing to justify the disqualification, and also the behaviour of the "regulator" Ecogra in backing up the unfortunate and dishonourable decision of the casino.

 

[bethug]

How many people at Ecogra looks at this? Does one person make a decision? If they stand by this the ecogra is in trouble. We cant let a casino get away from this kind of mess it needs to stop right now.

 

[caruso]

Bearing this is mind, it is my opinion that the casino is within its rights not to credit your account with the bonus.

Of course the casino is within its rights.

Every case of casino theft that has ever been perpetuated has been "within the casino's rights".

Many rogue casinos have both lost business and gone OUT of business envoking the "right to steal".

Angelciti tried to invoke it.

Gaming Club tried to invoke it.

Warren Cloud's invoked it a lot.

Cirrus tried to invoke it.

Omni tried to invoke it.

And many others.

We can now chalk up Lake Palace and Microgaming as members of that noble-spirited club of casinos / regulators who invoke the "right to steal".

 

[Stanford]

However - if a player is given an offer, accepts it and plays to all the T&Cs, he or she should be paid. What the casino does about it's right of admission in regard to that player subsequently is another issue.

And please, let's not use this to take cheap shots at eCOGRA - they've done a lot of fair and sterling work, and none of us are perfect.

You are correct. He should have been paid.

One really needs to understand this promotion. The way it should be played is that a player makes one or more deposits through Saturday. He can cash in on Sunday if he likes. The bonus comes on Monday. And he must play the bonus the required amount before cashing that out.

It is set up in such a manner that it encourages players to leave their funds in the casino until a specified time. They are asking players not to cashin till the end of the week. If Dirk left his funds in with his bonus, he was simply going beyond the terms to the advantage of the casino. That would be nice of him. I don't know why he would do that. There is no way to construe a pattern of abuse from the deposit/cashout timing as they explicitly set up what they wanted that timing to be.

There is a similar promotion at Fortune Lounge. If you reverse your withdrawal they enter you into a new drawing. It would not make sense to later claim you were not eligible for the drawing because your pattern was always to reverse your withdrawal and that is abusive. It makes the promotion moot.

As to eCOGRA, this is very importent. Decisions set precedent. Allowing the "bonus abuse" label to undo other specified bonus terms is a huge misstake. It tells the player community they are subject to arbitrary judgements. It isn't a cheap shot. If true, it is a very valid criticism. I still hold out hope that it isn't true.

imho,
Stanford.

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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

 

[The Dude]

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.