Meeting with Microgaming: what do players want?

[AussieDave]

How many more hints does Microgaming need before they finally realise that there is something seriously wrong with their software at the moment??

The new MG software was apparently required to run Hellboy. Whether that's true or not, is it possible the contractual agreement between MG and Dark Horse Comics had an agreed launch date.

Delays in this launch date would incur delay penalties. Hence the new MG software was released even though MG knew it was buggy.

Some food for thought...


Cheers



Dave

 

[RobWin]

The new MG software was apparently required to run Hellboy. Whether that's true or not, is it possible the contractual agreement between MG and Dark Horse Comics had an agreed launch date.

Delays in this launch date would incur delay penalties. Hence the new MG software was released even though MG knew it was buggy.

Some food for thought...


Cheers



Dave

So can the software be buggy and the RTP and the RNG still be accurate?

Things that make yo a$$ go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!
____
____

 

[RobWin]

Try it now.

Good to go....now hit this before you take off for the weekend...

It's actually a ...yes or no...I believe...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/meeting-with-microgaming-what-do-players-want.36887/

____
____

 

[The Dude]

Good to go....now hit this before you take off for the weekend...

It's actually a ...yes or no...I believe...

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/meeting-with-microgaming-what-do-players-want.36887/

____
____

I made it clear that I was talking about gaming licenses, what don't you understand?

 

[mixx]

That pretty much answered my question. Shortly MCG will be pulling the plug on USA players. They are giving operators a chance to be prepared and not suffer too bad a hit.

Thanks!! This will save me money as I don't have but one other casino on my desktop.

is this true??

 

[RobWin]

I made it clear that I was talking about gaming licenses, what don't you understand?

Yes, I understand you were talking about "Gaming Licenses" ....Let me put it another way, MGS licenses out their software to an operator that has a jurisdictional gaming license correct?

You were making the point that MGS could not pull or as you said "yank" the casino operators 'gaming license' because the jurisdictional licensing authority would have to do that, correct?

I was merely countering that with the question I asked, that yanking the 'gaming license' was not the only way that the casino could be shut down as far as MGS is concerned.

MGS could pull or stop licensing their software to the casino operator that was/is on shaky financial ground thus having the same effect on the casino operator as the jurisdictional body pulling it's gaming license, correct?

MGS no longer licenses the software platform to said casino operator, then casino operator no longer is running the MGS games platform. Casino can no longer rip off players using the MGS platform if they are in fact in finanicial trouble.
____
____

 

[gloria460]

I'm just going by what casinomeister stated in his previous post.

1. The USA market is not worth the risk

2. We need to find somewhere else to play.

I'm not sure if that's going to happen or when but since I only have one MCG casino that I play sparingly at it won't affect me much anyways.

Go back a few pages and find the longest post in this thread and it'll explain things to ya

 

[The Dude]

Of course they can terminate their software gaming licenses with their casinos. This has been done a number of times in the past. You can check out their archived Press Releases for examples:

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

Edited to add - I'll respond to some of the additional questions and comments in this thread on Monday

 

[felicie]

Thanks Bryan, you did good and I even understand most of it. LOL But, I am really bummed about our seemingly inevitable 'dump' probably june 1st? I'm going to go work on some representatives and all US players should do the same.
Thanks again.



if anyone knows or finds a light at the end of the MG tunnel, you know where to find me.

 

[greek39]

Yanking licenses. MGS does not have the power to yank an operator's gaming license.

GP? I'll discuss that in another thread.

Maybe not but I assume MGS has the power to yank the GP property links on their site. MGS I assume also has the right to list bad MGS operators such as GP.

I do have one question relating to this thread. Last week I had a balance of .50 cents real cash at one particular MGS casino. I made deposit of $40.00 but when returning from the banking section my balance was $40.00 as opposed to $40.50. The question where did the .50 cents go and how often does this happen.

greek39

 

[jetset]

Of course they can terminate their software gaming licenses with their casinos. This has been done a number of times in the past. You can check out their archived Press Releases for examples:

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

Edited to add - I'll respond to some of the additional questions and comments in this thread on Monday

I would add to Bryan's licensing comment: "subject to legal and contractual just cause".

Regarding the US market, my perception is that the situation has steadily worsened as the politicians and the enforcers between them have applied increasing pressure - mainly via financial restraints.

Come June 1st, unless Barney is able to head it off at the pass again (an event that seems increasingly unlikely) or there's a breakthrough in some individual states, it's going to get even tougher for reputable operators to service US player demand. That's when the UIGEA regulations come into full effect - a circus that has yet to be experienced.

I suspect that once they have online gambling pretty much buttoned down, the major US gambling groups will start building up a lucrative and exclusive online industry for themselves. Whilst that may take a little time, US players may be safer under such a US-regulated regime, although their activities will be more vulnerable to examination.

I would be surprised if Microgaming stayed in the market beyond June 1st - but that's just a personal guess.

 

[jetset]

I would like to offer my take on the slots vs. tournament question after discussing this interesting issue with a Microgaming expert:

Slot tournaments are not like poker tourneys, where the outcome of poker hands can be dependent on player skill and behaviour as well as chance. One of the perils of poker tourneys is that unless detected and stopped by Security, players can potentially collude together to improve their chances of beating more inexperienced players.

In the case of slot tournaments, however, the result of each spin is generated by the RNG on the server; it randomly generates spin results in the same way as the single player version of the game does. Therefore, players cannot collude with each other to defraud innocent players because the innocent player is just as likely to get the highest score with his spins as the fraudulent player is, and his results are not related to the behaviour of the other players in any way.

There may also be a need to distinguish between entering a tournament twice or more and re-buying.

A rebuy is when the player enters the tournament, plays all of his/her coins through and posts a score.... but then decides he/she wants to have another go and re-buys. He/she is then allotted another tranche of coins, plays his/her spins and accumulates a second total score, which is associated to the same casino account and alias as the first score.

However, on the tournament leaderboard only his best score shows up. This is akin to a raffle or even a lottery, where you can buy as many tickets as you want - the only advantage is that the increased number of entries may - I emphasise 'may' - give you a better opportunity to win.

Where a player has multiple casino accounts with diverse operators (as many players do) then he/she can enter a tournament using each of those accounts. The alias associated with each account appears separately on the tournament players list/leaderboard.

The alias associated with each of those accounts must be different, however - this may be very similar, but each alias must be distinct, e.g. john1234 and john1234$ or john12345.

The player would have to pay an entry fee into the tournament for each account he uses. So he...or she, is paying for the privilege of entering the tournament more than once.

Let’s say a VIP player has accounts at Operator A + Operator B. The operator runs a tournament where players can enter by invitation only (for example Grand Slam of Slots). Both operator A and Operator B want to invite their VIP players to participate in this tournament. If entry was restricted so the player can only enter the tournament via one of his accounts then that player is effectively disadvantaged because he can’t accept the offer of entry into the tournament from whichever operator offers it to him after the initial operator offer.

If the operators said "the player can enter via operator A but operator B can pay for a rebuy as their way of comping the player" and the player won a prize in that tournament, which of his accounts should be credited with the winnings? The account at operator A or the account at operator B?

Another aspect of the tournaments that may be causing misunderstandings or misperceptions is the ‘Continues’ question. If a player accepts a 'continue' he is given further coins, to make more spins and add to his initial score. This is different from a Re-buy or entering via a second account, because he’s building on his initial score rather than starting again from scratch.

Regarding the Private Operator Tournaments that some players have called for, this facility is present in the Microgaming software and can be deployed and configured in various ways at the discretion of each casino operator with his players in mind.

In these tourneys, the participation is restricted to players with accounts at a particular casino. For example, an operator might launch a POT in which the rules do not allow any re-buys or continues are set at 0. Players can ask their operators for such events.

In summary, there are major differences between a poker tournament and a slots tournament, and multiple but distinct entries in the latter do not carry the same risks of collusion or skulduggery as those in poker.

 

[Simmo!]

Although the problem with multiple accounts is that it gives an unfair advantage in so much as each tourney has a limited number of re-buys. A player might typically have 5 max. So opening new accounts until you hit a biggie is what this one's about.

 

[Tengil]

One thing about rake - they don't get nearly the amount of rake that a lot of players are assuming. The cap on rake is 3 per game for poker and MGS receives a very small percentage of this. So it's stretching it a bit when you're referring to a multi-million dollar fiasco.

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

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

 

[vinylweatherman]

In effect, the slot tournaments are a lottery.

OK.

Take the lottery model.

1000 people buy a ticket at £1 each, and a prize pool is set at £900, or 90% of what is raised. £100 goes to the organiser.

FAIR scenario. More tickets get sold. 2000 are bought, and the pool is kept to 90%, but is now raised to £1800, and the organiser now makes £200.
This can be scaled up depending on how well the tickets sell. This model offers an RTP of 90%, in effect, and on average, each ticket bought for £1 returns 90p, but the VARIANCE is high, such that only one ticket wins a big prize, and perhaps a small number of tickets win smaller prizes. This is just like making £1 spins on a 90% slot machine.

UNFAIR Scenario, or MGS tournament scenario. Tournament takes in £1000 in fees, spread between continues, rebuys, etc. Prize pool is £900, and £100 kept by operator.
Now, more players participate, or some rebuy and/or continue. £2000 is brought in, BUT, and this is the BIG CON. The prize pool is STILL £900, but the operator now trousers £1100, instead of £100. Scale THIS up to £3000, £4000 in fees etc.
Consider also that MGS made sweeping changes with the intention of ramping up the per tournament take considerably, yet the prize pool STILL remains static. Now, players can have up to 1000 continues and/or rebuys. In fact ONE player ALONE can more than fund the ENTIRE POOL!!!! provided, of course, they are determined to win at all costs.

This has NOTHING to do with skill vs chance, it is a simple matter of a game where each time a "ticket" is bought in what amounts to a lottery, the RTP for EVERYBODY drops a bit.

This is NOT how lotteries with cash prizes work, otherwise there would be no such thing as a "rollover draw".

The fact that the net RTP of these tournaments is NOT published, only makes players suspect that operators are raking in far more than the expected take of 5% of amount wagered on the normal slots.

There is really NO excuse, since there is no need for a "security team" to keep tabs on players to prevent collusion, so one cost that poker sites need to cover does NOT need to be covered with these tournaments, yet POKER sites merely take a fixed percentage rake from all entry fees, and if more players entered a tournament, this would be reflected in an increased prize pool.

 

[incrediblestuff]

Another aspect of the tournaments that may be causing misunderstandings or misperceptions is the ‘Continues’ question. If a player accepts a 'continue' he is given further coins, to make more spins and add to his initial score. This is different from a Re-buy or entering via a second account, because he’s building on his initial score rather than starting again from scratch.

Regarding the Private Operator Tournaments that some players have called for, this facility is present in the Microgaming software and can be deployed and configured in various ways at the discretion of each casino operator with his players in mind.

the whole point of my "issue" was that purely the existance of the continues, and the volume of continues, (and the rebuys) are suspect in itself.
i hope someone read my rambling in this thread, and maybe another, and understood what i meant.
WHY a platform is presented, where the setup of the prizepool vs the entry fee (considering the full continue/full rebuy is used) is - EV?
this points to either:
our customers are stupid, and we can abuse this

or

we can keep this money ourselves one "setup" employee, or even a few, can always get the top prize, and save us the money, because we have enough continues and rebuys, which can be used for free ( for those employees only) so anyone with a right mind wont get first, as it would be - EV for said person, but we cn always overcome the legit scores by using our free continues, and if unlucky the rebuys and then again the continues...

do you understand this?

and i pointed out that i like MGS, and am hoping this scenario is really not the case.
BUT
if both options fail to be acknowledged by any of you, then i have the last but not least possibillity, of a player ring, which use these casinos as money laundering facility.
they dont care that their first prizes are - EV, because they have a means of getting their major funds, "legitimated"
or even more complicated, with comps etc i do not care or wish to think of.
fact of the matter is, when you think about it, that if all said above is bs, and not happening, then there are a HEAP of really depressingly stupid people out there.

my only solution still, is to even out the whole offering of said tourneys, with a fair amount of NO continue, NO rebuy tourneys.
which will ensure for all parties involved, but mainly the player, that fair offers are being made, and luck is once again the main factor.

 

[chayton]

Now, players can have up to 1000 continues and/or rebuys. In fact ONE player ALONE can more than fund the ENTIRE POOL!!!!

This is something I've noticed lately - I played one a few days ago with a top prize of $75 - and there were 100 continues at $2 each. So one player could actually fund the whole prize pool!

 

[pevangel]

This is sad that MG doesnt feel it is worth the trouble for USA players, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I feel that eventually the USA will be able to legally play on line,then they will want us back, they should not give up on us, at least IMO this is. I still do not understand why we can not play new games if we are still able to play all other games (of course not speaking of progressives) I am sorry I just do not get it and quite honestly it makes me a bit pi--ed off, IMO again. Thank you Bryan for all your hard work getting us answers as always you da bomb


pevangel

 

[jetset]

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

I can confirm that when I checked with Microgaming I was told pretty much the same thing - in fact I was told that the company actually was among the losers when these sites went bust.

 

[jetset]

This is sad that MG doesnt feel it is worth the trouble for USA players, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I feel that eventually the USA will be able to legally play on line,then they will want us back, they should not give up on us, at least IMO this is. I still do not understand why we can not play new games if we are still able to play all other games (of course not speaking of progressives) I am sorry I just do not get it and quite honestly it makes me a bit pi--ed off, IMO again. Thank you Bryan for all your hard work getting us answers as always you da bomb


pevangel

It is sad that US politicians and enforcers have made such an inequitable mess out of online gambling with their daft laws and unfair and protectionist carve-outs, but unfortunately it's a fact of life and one that is making it increasingly difficult to operate a reputable business in the States under present conditions.

It's not just the circumstances in the US that MGS and other international companies in the market have to consider, but the knock-on effect in other markets/jurisdictions of operating in what is increasingly a confusing and risky legal environment.

Things will ultimately settle down in my personal opinion, because it is such a potentially lucrative market that it will be difficult to ignore....but in my view that will only happen when the major US firms are confident they have the US industry pretty much all to themselves, or those who have withdrawn and paid fines like Party Gaming.

I hope I'm wrong, but unless Barney gets going with his legalisation moves we'll see the UIGEA regulations in all their imprecision entrenched midyear 2010, making it that much harder to get the damned things overturned.

 

[The Dude]

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

Yeah - it's also covered on the MGS URL I referred to.

 

[Tengil]

Yeah - it's also covered on the MGS URL I referred to.

Well if they try to play the victim (in reference to Jetsets post) it doesnt take away the fact that they earned millions in rake from the failed rooms.

Consider the fact that the owner of Battlefield (one of the TUSK skins) is owed over a million even if they gave rakeback from 30% up to 60%.

 

[Tengil]

Would have edited my previous post if possible as this is slightly OT.

MGs only reaction to the poker fiascos lately can be found here:

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

Thats so low. So microgamingscandal.com doesnt exist anymore. Hopefully they are proud of themselfs.

 

[vinylweatherman]

This is sad that MG doesnt feel it is worth the trouble for USA players, that really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I feel that eventually the USA will be able to legally play on line,then they will want us back, they should not give up on us, at least IMO this is. I still do not understand why we can not play new games if we are still able to play all other games (of course not speaking of progressives) I am sorry I just do not get it and quite honestly it makes me a bit pi--ed off, IMO again. Thank you Bryan for all your hard work getting us answers as always you da bomb


pevangel

This is what is so confusing. US players are "not worth the trouble", yet MGS have gone to CONSIDERABLE LENGHTS of "trouble" by rewriting parts of the code SPECIFICALLY to cater for US players, even though this has been for the worse. If it REALLY was a case of "not worth the trouble", the US players would NOT have this bespoke "cut down" casino lobby that has to check IP addresses, reconfigure games to hide them from certain IP addresses, have an appeals department to sort out problems with IP geolocation, etc.

US players would have been able to play EVERYTHING, it being up to the operator, until one day, they would be told they could no longer play, PERIOD! They would then have blocked ALL US accounts based on registration information, and told players to withdraw their funds by a certain date. This would have ensured MGS DIDN'T spend ANY time specifically on US players, other than to issue ONE memo to operators regarding a closure date.

With regard to the "scandal", MGS permitted the MYTH of the player protection "trust fund" by SAYING NOTHING whilst it was perpetuated widely, perhaps thinking that there would NEVER be a case where there would be a call on this non existent fund because player's balances went along with a casino/poker collapse. MGS should have made efforts to squash this myth, and make it clear there was NO such fund, and that players had NO "special protection" in the event of an operator failure. I was "brought up" on this myth, and it DID enhance the credibility of MGS casinos above those from other softwares, where we KNEW for a FACT there was no player protection fund in the event of operator failure.

The other bit of bullshit is the defence put forward by the CEO of MGS, that modern sites use so many different softwares that it would be impossible to work out which "trust fund" was liable if said operator went bust, making it impractical to offer one.
Why is this bullshit? Well, MGS themselves DO NOT ALLOW operators to mix & match software. Look at what happened to Intertops when they tried to have TWO separate casinos attached to their sportsbook and poker site. MGS said NO, and ENFORCED it, this FORCED Intertops to ditch the "green" MGS casino, and even then MGS were not satisfied, they had to ditch Royal Joker too, which they partly did through a corporate "fudge" which still allows them to retain an "interest" in the casino, but not run it.
This means that it IS possible to operate a "trust fund", at least for the specific products, one for Poker, and another for Casino.

MGS ONLY decided to actually speak out about this "trust fund" being a myth when they ran out of delaying tactics after the TUSK collapse. Remember, first of all they said they were waiting for the liquidator to sort out the mess, and recover as much as they could, still giving the impression that there WOULD be a "settlement of last resort" to players if the liquidator was unable to find enough money. Only when this excuse ran out of mileage did MGS take the line "nothing to do with us, we just supply the software", which was then quickly followed by the collapse of Eurolinx.

All MGS have done is to use their corporate might to SILENCE THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE by forcing the closure of a protest website that was agitating for action over the scandal. They have done little to help players who have suffered HUGE losses, nor do they seem to be learning from past mistakes, since it HAPPENED AGAIN at Eurolinx, even though TUSK should have taught them that the systems they had in place were NOT WORKING.


Given that the CEO is now on record as saying "US players are not worth the trouble", this should be read that they WILL be ditched the next time the environment tightens up, which looks like being June 1st.

 

[cindie7777]

Royal Joker is not ran by Intertops? I did not know this and it would greatly impact me playing there. Intertops took care of me when they didnt have to in regards to those atm cards they were using and I have total faith in them but if Royal Joker is not the same management then I might not be playing there. Any Information would be appreciated. Good Luck to Everyone and Happy Easter Bunny!

 

[vinylweatherman]

Royal Joker is not ran by Intertops? I did not know this and it would greatly impact me playing there. Intertops took care of me when they didnt have to in regards to those atm cards they were using and I have total faith in them but if Royal Joker is not the same management then I might not be playing there. Any Information would be appreciated. Good Luck to Everyone and Happy Easter Bunny!

It's not quite that simple. There was an argument between MGS and Intertops over their decision to open a second RTG casino. MGS told Intertops they were NOT allowed to have two competing softwares, and would have to choose between keeping the MGS Intertops green casino, and having the Intertops red, but closing the green.

Initially, Intertops opened the RTG red casino to cater to it's US customers who could no longer use the Intertops MGS casino. Far from it being "not worth the trouble", MGS intervened and forced Intertops to choose. Intertops chose the US players, and kept the RTG casino, but closed the MGS Green one.

SOMEHOW, they managed to get Royal Joker past MGS, who certainly DID try to get this one closed too, but Intertops did some kind of company restructuring that allowed Royal Joker to somehow "not be part of Intertops", meaning MGS had to treat it as a different operator.

If you check under accredited, Royal Joker is NOT listed under Intertops, but under "Royal Joker group". The alternate structure is RUMOURED to be that Royal Joker is managed on behalf of Intertops by Jackpot Factory, but is structured and run as a stand alone separate casino.

Whatever they have done, it seems MGS cannot force it to close, leaving Intertops free to directly run the RTG Red casino for the benefit of US players, but also to allow non-US players to continue with the MGS experience.

Before all this, existing customers had a Royal Joker account opened for them, and it was simply a case of replacing the two leading letters of the Intertops casino account number with the two for Royal Joker.

The main reason I didn't continue was that they opened my Royal Joker account in Euros, but the UK does NOT use the Euro (yet), and the exchange fees would wipe out any benefit gained from taking up Royal Joker promotions.

From the point of view of the player, none of this should matter. Royal Joker is accredited, just as is Intertops.

 

[fatshaft]

MG receives 17,5% of the gross rake. And Im fully aware of the concept of rake. And its a multi-million fiasco, both ways. At TUSK players are owed 5,3 million AUD and at Eurolinx/BetOnBet the amount is higher (99% sure from what I have read, Finns already counting to close a million). There are loads of players who pay tens of thousands of rake per year, so pretty sure that MG received at least a couple of millions in rake from the failed rooms. There are players who earned MG more in rake than what they are owed.

And MG directed the skins to TUSK, even they cant deny it, without even checking in what condition the company was. Same like giving a casino license to Linx when they had been in severe financial problems for months.

And if Ladbrokes or Unibet would go bust players would get their money as they are held in segregated accounts.

Edit: the answers from MG was pretty much what I had expected. Empty words and denying responsibility.

Just interested if that was what Microgaming told you?

Well if they try to play the victim (in reference to Jetsets post) it doesnt take away the fact that they earned millions in rake from the failed rooms.

Consider the fact that the owner of Battlefield (one of the TUSK skins) is owed over a million even if they gave rakeback from 30% up to 60%.

Yeah sorry Bryan, but MGS have sold you a dummy here. This is an awful response to an issue that they know they are (rightfully) getting slammed for all over the net.

Yes they take a small percentage, but of a massive massive amount of rake. I play far from all of my poker on an MGS skin, and I play full ring rather than six max, so rake is slow to build. It's rare I play more than 4 tables, rare I even play that many because there's little full ring action.

But in the last 10 months, on tables I've played on, (and full ring accounts for as little as 1 in 20 or more tables at any given level) which is a tiny fraction of the network overall, there's been over €120,000+ taken off in rake. Peak traffic on MGS is c.4000 players. I play maybe on avergae 3/4 hours per day, 2 tables per day. Yet at peak there are around 700 tables running (much more heads up than FR), and of course an average of another 20 hours per day of play.

The amount of rake they must make is staggering. Don't forget that it's only a few months ago that Ladbrokes could afford to run a million dollar rake race every month. I would be astonished if MGS couldn't have covered the entire TUSK fiasco from just one months earnings.

Regardless of the enormous sums MGS have made from poker (whether they deny it or not), to sign up operators to make them substantial sums of money, then to wash their hands completely of player funds if an operator they allow and introduce to players goes walkabout, is scandalous behaviour in this day and age.

As Spiderzlegz says above, why are players funds not held in a seperate segregated network account, so that sites cannot just go pop in the night? That is a failing on MGS' part, just as much as allowing these skins to operate in the first place, and does nothing to help their case.


Pu it another way, MGS used to have a terrible reputation for something else - locking player accounts, and keeping funds. This wasn't fraudsters we're talking about either, some were people who got in a mess due to MGS' former policy of only allowing one nickname across the whole network, even if you had multiple accounts. It was often a nightmare trying to get your 'pin' that allowed you to re-use your nickname on a new skin, so players often gave up in frustration and simply created a new name on the new skin they were using. Others were simply guys who got caught in the middle of chip dumpers, and were genuine reputable and verifiable players, and had usually been with MGS for some time, that still didn't stop their useless collusion/fraud department from lumping genuine players in with the bad guys.

Seems MGS were all too keen to get involved there and grab funds, but when the situation is reversed, and there's GENUINE fraud being perpetrated AGAINST players, suddenly things are very very different.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

It seems to me that MGS did score a huge own goal over the poker fiasco and the damage to their reputation must have been far bigger than the sums involved. In the Sportsbetting industry when US facing bookmakers have got into difficulties the industry has done everything possible to honour players balances. The Cris group have bought out a number of failed operations and honoured player balances for example. The industry has always rallied and made an effort to help out players who have lost funds in the reputable books that have failed for whatever reason.

With the poker fiasco the obvious solution whould have been to honour player balances but install some kind of rollover system. Players would be kept on the network, more rake would have got generated and the network as a whole would have benefited from the improved action and liquidity. The extra activity generated would have easily offset the costs when measured over a number of years.

For anyone angered by the MGS treatment of the poker fiasco there is one crumb of comfort - the biggest losers by far seem to have been MGS and it's difficult to see their poker offering ever recovering. Infact that and the software issues with MGS Casino offering must have dented them badly as a brand IMO. I don't think too many players would be surprised if for example Ladbrokes were to change software providers at some point in the future for instance.

I don't really know what Bryan can be expected to do about the poker issues as it is not his field of expertise and all the negociations must have been conducted at the MGS operator level. It's very possible the big operators were the ones blocking a solution and may have put MGS in a very difficult position. But certainly it was the players that suffered and it was very damaging.

 

[fatshaft]

I don't really know what Bryan can be expected to do about the poker issues as it is not his field of expertise and all the negociations must have been conducted at the MGS operator level. It's very possible the big operators were the ones blocking a solution and may have put MGS in a very difficult position. But certainly it was the players that suffered and it was very damaging.

I do agree with you here, Bryan was in a difficult spot as it isn't as you point out his area of expertise, so easy for MGS to blind side him like they've done.

I don't blame him for that, but it was a chance for MGS to come up with something positive, instead, with the response they've given him, they've shown that they are happy to continue to take the punters for fools.

I thank Bryan for his efforts though.