Best of the Best Meister ratings,time to do a update?

Doesn't necessarily think that's the case Mark - there is nothing in the UK regs that says: SOW at 2k, yet some casino's have adopted that approach (happy to stand corrected)

Would i prefer to play at a casino that doesn't SOW me for depositing 20 quid a week and hitting this 2k limit and getting asking for my RBS? Yes, i would (hence, why after consideration of risk, i play mainly Crypto) :p

I take your point though - RG might be good for a casino (avoiding fines, showing they care:p) but for normal players (with little evidence sometimes of gambling issues), it's a bit of a pain in the arse,
I’m not going to comment on the thresholds as that’s not necessarily set in stone, but my point was more about the aspect of going through the hassle of SOW with a place you like (I agree it’s a pain, I’ve done it) and then having somewhere you are comfortable with, rather than a crypto or somewhere else where you’re not verified where a win might be in jeapordy?

Personally, and I understand I’m in the minority I think, I play with places who have asked me to validate my spend as I know it’s going to potentially bite me otherwise. Granted my number of sites have reduced because of that, I don’t want to send docs everywhere and some processes were better than others, but I play more confident somewhere where I’ve got a relationship rather than dipping my toes elsewhere. The operators that do the compliance stuff best will do well. We’re trying hard to be the best, but it’s not easy!
 
Doesn't necessarily think that's the case Mark - there is nothing in the UK regs that says: SOW at 2k, yet some casino's have adopted that approach (happy to stand corrected)

Would i prefer to play at a casino that doesn't SOW me for depositing 20 quid a week and hitting this 2k limit and getting asking for my RBS? Yes, i would (hence, why after consideration of risk, i play mainly Crypto) :p

I take your point though - RG might be good for a casino (avoiding fines, showing they care:p) but for normal players (with little evidence sometimes of gambling issues), it's a bit of a pain in the arse,
Side note and sorry for the double post, why would you be reluctant to share the docs?
 
I’m not going to comment on the thresholds as that’s not necessarily set in stone, but my point was more about the aspect of going through the hassle of SOW with a place you like (I agree it’s a pain, I’ve done it) and then having somewhere you are comfortable with, rather than a crypto or somewhere else where you’re not verified where a win might be in jeapordy?

Personally, and I understand I’m in the minority I think, I play with places who have asked me to validate my spend as I know it’s going to potentially bite me otherwise. Granted my number of sites have reduced because of that, I don’t want to send docs everywhere and some processes were better than others, but I play more confident somewhere where I’ve got a relationship rather than dipping my toes elsewhere. The operators that do the compliance stuff best will do well. We’re trying hard to be the best, but it’s not easy!
Primarily because the casino, unlike a bank, isn't lending me money so (imo) have no right to question the in's and out's of my banking arrangements. Also, i don't trust casino's to hold the information securely - you can see that by even accredited casinos asking you to email them over, w/o end to end encryption or a secure upload facility.

Been plenty a casino, even accredited here, are asking for it before w/d's still and then asking, in some cases, for named parties in the bank records to supply stuff (can't remember the casino) - so, any casino that adopts (and you alluded to it, aren't set in stone, aka are set arbitrarily by the casino brand based on their risk tolerance) such an approach is a no no for me.

Do i want to engage in: what's this, what's that when it comes to review? No chance.

Personally i think applying arbitrary SOW thresholds is quite lazy - it's easier than a risk based approach, using multiple data points, granted, so i guess that's why some places do it that way.

I do feel a bit of sympathy (though, not much :p ) for casinos regarding it as any 'discretion' in applying
regulatory compliance can be challenged.

Sidebar ended :p
 
Primarily because the casino, unlike a bank, isn't lending me money so (imo) have no right to question the in's and out's of my banking arrangements. Also, i don't trust casino's to hold the information securely - you can see that by even accredited casinos asking you to email them over, w/o end to end encryption or a secure upload facility.

Been plenty a casino, even accredited here, are asking for it before w/d's still and then asking, in some cases, for named parties in the bank records to supply stuff (can't remember the casino) - so, any casino that adopts (and you alluded to it, aren't set in stone, aka are set arbitrarily by the casino brand based on their risk tolerance) such an approach is a no no for me.

Do i want to engage in: what's this, what's that when it comes to review? No chance.

Personally i think applying arbitrary SOW thresholds is quite lazy - it's easier than a risk based approach, using multiple data points, granted, so i guess that's why some places do it that way.

I do feel a bit of sympathy (though, not much :p ) for casinos regarding it as any 'discretion' in applying
regulatory compliance can be challenged.

Sidebar ended :p

BIB - That got me thinking, imagine a casino that was a lender as well. You signup and apply for "credit" Play on the casino if you win you pay back the "credit with interest".

I wonder why that has not happened yet? Afterall casinos already do soft searches on peoples credit records lol

I know it is stupid thought but I bet there would be a lot of takers to this model.
 
BIB - That got me thinking, imagine a casino that was a lender as well. You signup and apply for "credit" Play on the casino if you win you pay back the "credit with interest".

I wonder why that has not happened yet? Afterall casinos already do soft searches on peoples credit records lol

I know it is stupid thought but I bet there would be a lot of takers to this model.
It used to be a thing! I’m sure it still is outside of the UK too.
 
wow I never saw a casino that offered credit lol
Well I might have got this wrong for casino but when I started in the industry in a bookmakers we had plenty of customers who had credit accounts they would pay off at the end of the month. It was pretty standard. Always a crazy one for ante-post bets. “I’ll have £100 on Man City to win the league” in August and not have to pay/get the win until end of season.
 
Well I might have got this wrong for casino but when I started in the industry in a bookmakers we had plenty of customers who had credit accounts they would pay off at the end of the month. It was pretty standard. Always a crazy one for ante-post bets. “I’ll have £100 on Man City to win the league” in August and not have to pay/get the win until end of season.

Ahh ok makes sense in bookies, I never been into a bookie so never knew.
 
Back to the rating system:

The system in place now works, but it needs to be improved. We should not be reinventing the wheel here since a number of comments have already been dealt with in the past. And some suggestions have either been done or thrown out.

The reason I created the Meister Minions was to ensure we have quality input from experienced players, not off the wall comments from disgruntled players with unhelpful, unqualified comments, (which most competing sites encourage.). The MMs need an incentive to be involved, and managed properly. We have done this before - the only way to get people to involved is to give something in return. That is a cold fact - few care about doing stuff for free, they want incentives. So we have the engine already to go - it needs to be managed with prizes or other incentives to get folks involved. I have been battling this for a while now.

As for what to rate: it needs to be doable and realistic. We had this conversation in the MMs forum some time ago - I need to look at that. And the rating categories need to be measurable, at the moment the ratings are as follows:

Non-accredited casinos - ratings 1 - 5

Software

  • All Platforms = 5 (casino games, sports, poker, skill games, everything...)
  • Some Platforms (i.e. casino games, live games, poker) = 4
  • Few Platforms (i.e. slots, live games) = 3
  • All slots = 2
  • One provider (et al RTG) = 1

Jurisdiction 5 being outstanding - 1 being a shithole.
  • Kahnawake – 5
  • UKGC – 5
  • Alderney – 4
  • Isle of Man – 4
  • Malta (MGA)- 4
  • New Jersey – 4
  • Gibraltar – 3
  • Antigua – 2
  • Costa Rica – 2
  • Curacao
  • 8048/JAZ - 2
  • 365/JAZ - 2
  • 5536/JAZ - 1
  • 1668/JAZ – 0
  • Cyprus – 2

Reverse Time Reverse time should be replaced with perhaps availablity of RTP results, something like that. No one knows what reverse time is - they certainly did 10 years ago.

  • 0 hrs = 5
  • 1 – 12 hours = 4
  • 13 – 24 hours = 3
  • 25 – 48 hours = 2
  • +48 hours = 1

Cashout Time (this is applied to verified player cash outs)

  • 0 – 11 hours = 5
  • 12 – 23 hours = 4
  • 24 – 47 hours = 3
  • 48 – 71 hours = 2
  • 72 hours and higher = 1

Weekly withdrawal limits Loads of players over look this. Some may not care since they may be low rollers, but normal players, or high rollers can be caught off guard with low weekly withdrawal limits. Playing back their winnings is a common outcome. No one rates this as far as I know.

  • No limit = 5
  • 10,000 or higher = 4
  • 5001 – 9999 = 3
  • 3001 – 5000 = 2
  • 2000 – 3000 = 1

Responsiveness to complaints This applies to the casino rep, or when we have a PAB and need some answers.

  • Super responsive - within hours = 5
  • Responsive - 12 - 24 hours = 4
  • Medium - 25 - 36 hours =3
  • Meh = 36 - 72 hrs = 2
  • A week or longer = 1 or 0

Meister Points These are our incentives for the casino operator to get busy at Casinomeister.

  • Meister awards +1
  • Posting timely and helpful replies to complaints +1
  • Engaging the membership with interesting and insightful discourse. +1
  • Posting exclusive promos. +1
  • Maintaining an attitude that reflects the Casinomeister Philosophy +1

So this is applied to ALL non Accredited casinos. These numbers are averaged out for their CM score which is 1 - 10.

As soon as a casino becomes accredited, they are rated in the same categories, but other MEASURABLE categories are used - these include:

  • Weekend payouts y/n
  • Lock winnings on request when withdrawing (known as flushing) y/n
  • The length of time that the casino has been established is also computed into the score. The longer a casino stays in business, the better.
The Meister Minions already have a forum where they can add their input and scores. All they need to do is get busy. The only drawback at the moment is most of this is done by hand, except for the Accred scores which are automated via that formula.

I have been here long enough to know that it is rare for anyone to do anything for free - so yeah, who wants to be a Meister Minion when there is nothing but a badge to wear? When we had monthly drawings fo the top MMs who were active - well that worked. I am sure something can be done here. :thumbsup:
 
wow I never saw a casino that offered credit lol

When I worked land based (long time ago) we offered credit to a select few customers.

Credit cap was (I think) based on their history of previous visits which was kept a close but not 100% check of.

For example if they'd done 3 visits in a 2 week spell and lost 3K, they'd be offered around 50% of this as a credit / loan to play with in the casino.

I know also we used to cash cheques with no guarantee cards
 
Back to the rating system:

The system in place now works, but it needs to be improved. We should not be reinventing the wheel here since a number of comments have already been dealt with in the past. And some suggestions have either been done or thrown out.

The reason I created the Meister Minions was to ensure we have quality input from experienced players, not off the wall comments from disgruntled players with unhelpful, unqualified comments, (which most competing sites encourage.). The MMs need an incentive to be involved, and managed properly. We have done this before - the only way to get people to involved is to give something in return. That is a cold fact - few care about doing stuff for free, they want incentives. So we have the engine already to go - it needs to be managed with prizes or other incentives to get folks involved. I have been battling this for a while now.

As for what to rate: it needs to be doable and realistic. We had this conversation in the MMs forum some time ago - I need to look at that. And the rating categories need to be measurable, at the moment the ratings are as follows:

Non-accredited casinos - ratings 1 - 5

Software

  • All Platforms = 5 (casino games, sports, poker, skill games, everything...)
  • Some Platforms (i.e. casino games, live games, poker) = 4
  • Few Platforms (i.e. slots, live games) = 3
  • All slots = 2
  • One provider (et al RTG) = 1

Jurisdiction 5 being outstanding - 1 being a shithole.
  • Kahnawake – 5
  • UKGC – 5
  • Alderney – 4
  • Isle of Man – 4
  • Malta (MGA)- 4
  • New Jersey – 4
  • Gibraltar – 3
  • Antigua – 2
  • Costa Rica – 2
  • Curacao
  • 8048/JAZ - 2
  • 365/JAZ - 2
  • 5536/JAZ - 1
  • 1668/JAZ – 0
  • Cyprus – 2

Reverse Time Reverse time should be replaced with perhaps availablity of RTP results, something like that. No one knows what reverse time is - they certainly did 10 years ago.

  • 0 hrs = 5
  • 1 – 12 hours = 4
  • 13 – 24 hours = 3
  • 25 – 48 hours = 2
  • +48 hours = 1

Cashout Time (this is applied to verified player cash outs)

  • 0 – 11 hours = 5
  • 12 – 23 hours = 4
  • 24 – 47 hours = 3
  • 48 – 71 hours = 2
  • 72 hours and higher = 1

Weekly withdrawal limits Loads of players over look this. Some may not care since they may be low rollers, but normal players, or high rollers can be caught off guard with low weekly withdrawal limits. Playing back their winnings is a common outcome. No one rates this as far as I know.

  • No limit = 5
  • 10,000 or higher = 4
  • 5001 – 9999 = 3
  • 3001 – 5000 = 2
  • 2000 – 3000 = 1

Responsiveness to complaints This applies to the casino rep, or when we have a PAB and need some answers.

  • Super responsive - within hours = 5
  • Responsive - 12 - 24 hours = 4
  • Medium - 25 - 36 hours =3
  • Meh = 36 - 72 hrs = 2
  • A week or longer = 1 or 0

Meister Points These are our incentives for the casino operator to get busy at Casinomeister.

  • Meister awards +1
  • Posting timely and helpful replies to complaints +1
  • Engaging the membership with interesting and insightful discourse. +1
  • Posting exclusive promos. +1
  • Maintaining an attitude that reflects the Casinomeister Philosophy +1

So this is applied to ALL non Accredited casinos. These numbers are averaged out for their CM score which is 1 - 10.

As soon as a casino becomes accredited, they are rated in the same categories, but other MEASURABLE categories are used - these include:

  • Weekend payouts y/n
  • Lock winnings on request when withdrawing (known as flushing) y/n
  • The length of time that the casino has been established is also computed into the score. The longer a casino stays in business, the better.
The Meister Minions already have a forum where they can add their input and scores. All they need to do is get busy. The only drawback at the moment is most of this is done by hand, except for the Accred scores which are automated via that formula.

I have been here long enough to know that it is rare for anyone to do anything for free - so yeah, who wants to be a Meister Minion when there is nothing but a badge to wear? When we had monthly drawings fo the top MMs who were active - well that worked. I am sure something can be done here. :thumbsup:
Well vent to have a look see if i had forgot to rate any of the casinos i mostly play
But couldnt find the top rated casino in there Winz for some reason ? 🙂
 
Attributing decimal scoring out of ten seems to go in and out of fashion, but does appear antiquated, and everything below e.g '7.7' redundant to players, seeing this as flawed compared to the '9+'-rated casinos in a sidebar!

Players will also forego any objectivity when losing at a 'great' casino, whilst praising a 'poor' one that has paid them. Couple that with Trustpilot-esque open comments, it's pretty much impossible to garner any sense of authenticity in the modern bot- and shill-infested landscape.

For ease of use it'd be far less cluttered if casinos fell into three or four categories, like the aforementioned 'Best of the Best' or simple headers like 'Essential and 'Recommended', with the remainder of casinos not bearing any of those down to player discretion.

Data should ideally be collected and curated by somewhat seasoned players at that joint when factored in to any scoring system, with Johnny-come-latelies not able to hijack proceedings. If anything, it's these minions that are the real guidance, and their input all that matters. I'd also look to have that membership reviewed as many have likely moved on from their posts!
 
You could have both a CM rating and a player rating.
Like they do on Rotten tomatoes, its neat being able to compare the audience score with the professional reviews.
The problem with this is we still end up in a situation where the CM rating is largely static, and if a casino declines, the user rating will be out of whack with the CM rating. This leave things over to interpretation (eg are the low user ratings primarily from losing players).

In saying the above, I don’t have a better solution.
 
Side note and sorry for the double post, why would you be reluctant to share the docs?
Mark - can you please share with us what financial qualifications your staff have that review customer financial documentation? And what training and systems are in place to ensure this info is kept secure and confidential?
 
The problem with this is we still end up in a situation where the CM rating is largely static, and if a casino declines, the user rating will be out of whack with the CM rating. This leave things over to interpretation (eg are the low user ratings primarily from losing players).

In saying the above, I don’t have a better solution.
The scores should be reviewed on a monthly or biweekly plan. That should not be a prob. I do that - but my days are numbers here :p :eek2:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top