More eCOGRA Seals Awarded


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001

For immediate release 22 April 2004


Player safety initiative gathers momentum

Following the announcement of the first 23 ultra-safe eCOGRA seal casinos only weeks ago, the player protection organisation has published a list of a further 16 successful candidates.

The board of directors of eCommerce and Online Gaming Regulation and Assurance (eCOGRA) approved the new seal-holders after extensive independent testing and inspections by professional teams from international audit group PricewaterhouseCoopers to ensure that they met the stringent requirements of the organisation regarding operational efficiency, fair gaming and player protection.

The latest casinos awarded the seal are:

Arthurian Casino
Cinema Casino
Crazy Vegas Casino
777 Dragon Casino
Sun Vegas Casino
Ruby Fortune Casino
Spin Palace Casino
Roxy Palace Casino
Jackpots in a Flash
Mummy's Gold Casino
Piggs Peak Casino
Desert Dollar Casino
Diamond Casino
Havana Club Casino
Platinum Play Casino

"The current batch of seal-holders is a mix of successful first time candidates and operations which did not initially meet our eGAP requirements and have had to reorganise their systems in order to fully comply", eCOGRA CEO Andrew Beveridge reports. "We are now satisfied that all operational and business aspects are in line with our eGAP principles"

Beveridge said that a further batch of casinos was currently under examination, and that the eCOGRA initiative to present the online gambling community with a wide range of safe, honest and efficient online casino venues was steadily gathering momentum.

"The latest seal awards bring to 39 the top class casinos who have voluntarily submitted to our genuine self-imposed regulation", he said. "More casinos are currently being inspected, and interest in the eCOGRA standards and implementation is growing in the industry from players, casinos and software providers alike".

Meanwhile, business conditions at the first batch of seal casinos are looking promising. Scott Gaines, spokesman for the Trident Entertainment group which owns King Neptune's, Trident Lounge and VegasUSA casinos reports, "The Seal provides a comfort level to existing and potential players. We are seeing some improvements in visits and activity"

eCOGRA requires that approved casinos are financially stable and have adequate reserves to cover wagers. The probity of casino management is scrutinised, together with player protection measures, payout times and financial facilities, games fairness, responsive Support and general operational efficiency. Policies have to be in place for communicating with clients and dealing with player complaints, and satisfactory technical capabilities and anti money-laundering systems are critical.

The new list of seals was augmented for the first time by additional awards to Jackpot City Casino, Havana Club Casino and King Neptunes Casino, which successfully presented their foreign language sites for inspection, too.

To guarantee eCOGRA's autonomy from software providers and operators, the seals compliance committee is comprised of three independent directors who are not representative of the member software providers or casino operators. These directors are Michael Hirst OBE, former Chairman and CEO of Hilton International; Bill Galston OBE, former Chief Inspector of the Gaming Board for Great Britain; and Frank Catania, a former Assistant Attorney General in the State of New Jersey and former Director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming.

Issued by: Andrew Beveridge, CEO
Date: 22 April 2004
Telephone: +44 20 7887 1480
I am pleased to see this, and I do have faith in eCOGRA, but they really need to work on getting some non-microgaming casinos to pass.
I re-checked with eCOGRA and there are non-MGS casinos currently undergoing the rigorous inspection process, so we should see something emerging from that in the not too distant future.

They are also in discussions with several other software providers interested in getting their licensees certified and monitored, so it's early days yet.

There are one or two posters, especially on WOL who have made it their business to slam this initiative every time the name comes up. They presumably have their reasons for doing this, but it is imo a pity that they are so intent on taking a negative view that they are condemning the organisation before it has had a chance to show what it can do for the player and for the industry.

I believe most gamblers are reasonable people who will give it that opportunity.
I had no intention of commenting here since I've done that at WOL, but you just had to take a pot-shot, didn't you?

My only comment is to summarize my WOL comments: the organization is currently funded by the software providers it "regulates"; additionally, the software verification process is ENTIRELY uncorroborated and unverified. In this current state, it is invalid. If any of the above subsequently changes my opinion will change (and it is MY opinion; few others have been expressed). As it stands now, all good intentions notwithstanding, the exercise is invalidated by these two facts.
Caruso, you are a very intelligent person.

How come I don't see anything constructive here?

You spend a ton of time attacking things, but I do not see you offering any useable alternatives.

As I said elsewhere, regulation is the only way we are going to see more honest casinos. Since government regulation is still in the far future, the industry needs to selfregulate.

Shooting down every effort at doing so is shooting yourself in the foot.

Shooting these efforts down without offering a viable alternative is even worse.

The path you are heading down will lead to more crooked casinos and mediators who charge you a cut of the winnings that should be yours in the first place.

Is that what you really want?
I don't claim to know too much about eCogra and I haven't seen any discussions on WOL about this. But I have a question - testing is not a new thing for casinos - both land-based and online. Alderney, Isle of Mann etc put it in their license that casino software needs to be tested and verified by independent testing companies before a license is granted and as such there are a number of online casinos that have been tested. Why is it therefore that there seems to be a 'need' for an organisation such as eCogra to exist? It is noticeable that eCogra doesn't seem to be 'independent' since its apparantly funded by the software operators themselves (I'm assuming it is funded by the software guys - I don't know). Yet I'm sure these software companies know full well independent testing companies are available.

I'm all for regulatation and 'honest' casinos. But the mechanics for this are already established with independent verification companies - I won't name them here (unless you want me too!), but if you look at any casinos licensed in Alderney, you'll find the testing company on the website.

In other words - viable alternatives already exist. They do not want a share of revenue - they simply test the software on a number of levels before a license is granted. Surely this is the direction the online gaming world should be moving in?

Unless I'm getting it all wrong! (which isn't rare!)
It is my understanding that eCOGRA pays these independent testing companies to conduct tests.

They approve casinos and then also provide a negotiator to players who may have issues with the approved casinos.

So far no issues - so no testing of this feature.

Someone needs to fund these tests and other activities. They are not free.
Thanks for that - I just re-read the press release and they mention PWC do the testing. I understand that for a payout audit - but not necessarily for a software audit - but perhaps PWC offer this now also. I don't know.

As for someone needing to pay. Absolutely. In my opinion, since its the casino operator that applies for a license; its the casino operator that provides the service to the player; and therefore its the casino operator that should pay for the independent auditing. It shouldn't be left to the hands of the sotware provider. In an ideal world, I think the software provider should be providing their own independent audit of their software, in addition to the one the casino operator itself should have of its operations. But i guess one step at a time...
"There are one or two posters, especially on WOL who have made it their business to slam this initiative every time the name comes up. They presumably have their reasons for doing this, but it is imo a pity that they are so intent on taking a negative view that they are condemning the organisation before it has had a chance to show what it can do for the player and for the industry.

"I believe most gamblers are reasonable people who will give it that opportunity."
I'm repeating myself more specifically here - Caruso is one of those to whom I refer. He has started a vendetta against eCOGRA using the spoiling tactic of negative and inaccurate posts about the organisation every time the name of this genuine initiative comes up.

Government regulation and funding (through taxation) for an infrastructure that can support it internationally would be a wonderful thing, but in practical terms this is not even on the horizon.

So the player community is left with largely ineffectual, isolated licensing jurisdictions and the promise of a really good set-up in the UK (which will probably exclude US gamblers out of respect for contrary US views on whether it is better to ban or regulate)

Not a lot of protection. Of course, we have the efforts of the better portals that identify and pillory bad operations, but that is at best an informal solution complementary to a formal, organised structure of inspection and monitoring.

Enter eCOGRA into a market cynical from the adverse failure of several inferior predecessors. It's a daunting prospect.

If a player protection organisation is to do its job it needs an infrastructure and the wherewithal to pay independent third party inspectors and monitors. Where is this money going to come from, the players? Hardly likely.

Some of the more responsible software providers and casino operators, recognising that the present uncontrolled nature of the industry is unfair to players, ultimately not good for business and probably plays into anti-online gaming legislator hands decide to put their money where their mouths are and provide the funding.

Probably recognising that the likes of Caruso would be screaming "Claptrap" negativity, they insist that the organisation is set up in such a way that independent, experienced and respected executives from the land industry have control of the inspection and enforcement process and Seal awards.

"To guarantee eCOGRA's autonomy from software providers and operators, the seals compliance committee is comprised of three independent directors who are not representative of the member software providers or casino operators. These directors are Michael Hirst OBE, former Chairman and CEO of Hilton International; Bill Galston OBE, former Chief Inspector of the Gaming Board for Great Britain; and Frank Catania, a former Assistant Attorney General in the State of New Jersey and former Director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming."

The CEO is directed to report to these independent executives, and considerable money, international expertise and time is spent evolving a set of regulations to control online casinos for the benefit of the player and ultimately their own survival.

This has not cost the playing community a cent, and the system is designed to transcend international boundaries by controlling the casinos themselves so that players everywhere are covered. And that they have a direct line of complaint to eCOGRA if they need it.

Having set up these detailed regulations, eCOGRA is now faced with the problem of credibly implementing them in the many quality casinos that have already seen the value and are keen to submit themselves for inspections.

One of the most experienced international professional business services groups, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, is already widely experienced in the online gambling industry, is an independent third party and is therefore a logical choice to carry out financial probity evaluations, inspect casinos for compliance with the regulations and then monitor their operations. This costs money but eCOGRA is willing to pay to ensure that the system is independently applied.

The first casinos to apply pass the rigorous and genuine inspections and are announced.

The commitment of all these people and the significant sums of money spent are then rudely dismissed by Caruso as "Claptrap" when there is no comparable system available. And to support his argument he claims that the widely respected eCOGRA directors and PwC are not independent.

Already we are seeing top casino groups with good reputations committing to this initiative. Groups that are rarely the subject of complaint and a provider that stands behind their players if casinos fail. More casinos than Alderney or the IOM for example have thus far mustered...and I am confident that more will be coming and from different providers . Some are in inspection right now.

Caruso's dismissive and spoiling tactics of suggesting a presently unattainable regulation by government alternative every time the eCOGRA name comes up is not carrying the issue forward constructively in any way, and I do not have the time to waste on trying to convince such a closed and negative mind otherwise.

The majority of gamblers will sensibly make their own judgements based on what has been presented to them on the message boards, media and at the eCOGRA site, and how eCOGRA performs to their advantage in the years ahead.

Because regardless of the continued attempts to undermine it by Caruso and those who persist in regarding it as just another baseless "marketing" subterfuge, eCOGRA will continue to apply its practical requirements to quality casinos that want to do better business by providing superior service to the players.
Last edited:
Of course Ecogra funded by the casinos it's testing.

You have to pay to get a driver license - to the same people who determine whether or not you deserve one. (second thought - the way some people drive you really gotta wonder........ :D )

The same principle applies here - who better to pay the expense that those who want the endorsement? Makes sense to me.

Well, that's my 2c worth.
Reading some of the posts elsewhere, it occurs to me that the full implications of the eCOGRA eGAP requirements may have been lost in some of the sweeping generalisations that have been made.

For those who are interested in a more balanced view, I am including a link in this post to the relevant section of the eCOGRA site, together with a very brief summary of the broad areas on which Seal casinos are required to comply. Obviously the inspection teams and the applicants have a far more detailed dossier on the regulations to be met, but this gives an idea of the scope, which goes beyond gambling software tests.

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

eCOGRA Seal Practices and Associated Objectives

The integrity of the eCOGRA seal is principally dependent on the following process :

whether the seal requirements are sufficient and appropriate;

the extent to which operators and software providers adhere to these requirements; and

the effectiveness of the procedures adopted by the Audit Panel firms to ensure compliance

with these requirements.

An exhaustive and detailed schedule of requirements encompassing all areas of online gaming relating to fair gaming practices are incorporated into eGAP. Each practice and its related objective, is summarised as follows :

Player Protection

1. Payment to and Receipts from Players

Payment requests / receipts shall be efficiently and promptly attended to and payments / receipts shall be completely and accurately processed.

2. Minimum Information Requirements

Seal holders shall be required to adequately record certain minimum information relating to player and game activity.

3. Minimum Security Requirements

Information security policies and procedures shall be implemented and maintained to ensure the availability, integrity and confidentiality of gaming operations.

4. Responsible Gaming

A responsible gaming environment that actively discourages problematic gambling shall be established, enforced and monitored.

5. Player and Game Funds

Player balances and game funds shall be sufficiently covered by on demand funds.

6. Player Information

Player accounts shall be managed and accounted for in a secure, safe and efficient environment. The privacy and confidentiality of all player information submitted at any point in time shall be protected from unauthorised disclosure.

Fair Gaming

7. Software Development and Maintenance

Software shall be developed, implemented and maintained in a manner representative of best practice standards.

8. Total Gaming Transaction Review

Games shall be random, independent and fair.

9. Server Connectivity Requirements

Minimum game server connectivity requirements shall be met to ensure that players are protected from losses due to connectivity problems.

10. General Game Characteristics

Seal holders shall adhere to game characteristics that ensure a fair game for a player.

11. Disaster Recovery

eCOGRA seal holders shall be able to demonstrate that they can recover from a system disaster.

12. System Malfunctions

Both the player and eCOGRA's seal holders shall be protected from system and hardware malfunctions.

Responsible Conduct

13. Anti-Money Laundering

Preventative and detective controls addressing money-laundering and fraud risks shall be documented and implemented according to the relevant points in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) guidelines.

14. Responsible Advertising and Promotions

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.

15. Probity Checks

All key individuals and entities involved with members and operators should be credible and not have criminal records.

The Review of System Software

The gaming software is clearly one of the key areas that must be addressed in assessing eCOGRA member and operator eGAP compliance. To meet this objective eCOGRA has developed a highly comprehensive and practical system testing methodology called Total Gaming Transaction Review ("TGTR").

TGTR is an 'outcome-based verification' approach that deviates substantially from the commonly adopted testing of source code which has traditionally been used in the land-based gaming environment (and which has been commonly adopted in the online environment due to a lack of understanding and a better alternative method). In addition to providing a high degree of assurance that the relevant requirements are achieving compliance, this process may be undertaken with minimal disruption to the software provider and operator business activities.

TGTR involves a thorough analysis of every transaction for every game by an independent and trusted third party. This is done by a respected international accounting firm which has been elected to the Audit Panel. This form of review is ongoing, is based on actual transactions and actual game play irrespective of volumes, and can be applied during ongoing system changes and development. Analytical and statistical review ensures the data output is within an acceptable range. This approach also allows for the full investigation of specific queries related to the game play.

It is worth concluding with the point that it's not just about the audit firm being satisfied that the casino operator is meeting the standards - after that the audit firm is required to report their findings to the Independent Directors who must also be satisfied that there is a sufficiently high level of compliance. Both PwC and the Independent Directors' reputations are on the line if a non-compliant casino slips through, so you can expect the process to be extremely thorough.

These are not just idle words on a website - they are firm and detailed requirements addressing player-sensitive areas of any casino operation, and they have to be complied with under inspection and monitoring, and backed by an efficient player complaints system at both casino and eCOGRA itself.
"To guarantee eCOGRAs autonomy from software providers and operators, the seals compliance committee is comprised of three independent directors who are not representative of the member software providers or casino operators. These directors are Michael Hirst OBE, former Chairman and CEO of Hilton International; Bill Galston OBE, former Chief Inspector of the Gaming Board for Great Britain; and Frank Catania, a former Assistant Attorney General in the State of New Jersey and former Director of the New Jersey Division of Gaming."
Cute kid, Janet! :)

Yes, it does seem like there are lots of checks and balances in place. And non microgaming casinos will soon also be certified.

I think players will really benefit from this, and once there is a bit more variey of software, I may well start carrying nothing but eCOGRA approved casinos on my website.
Thanks, Dom.
That pic was taken at my older daughter's wedding in December. That's her hand on my right shoulder.
Last edited:
As part of my on going campaign against and IGS, I contacted eCogra. My email was promptly replied to, I sent another, and that one was replied to as well. See below.

My email to them;
-----Original Message-----
From: mark altland []
Sent: 23 April 2004 13:34
Subject: A question about IGS
Dear Sir/madam,
I have an ongoing dispute with a software provider named IGS. I noticed

that your organisation hasn't approved them yet as a software provider.
and when the time comes that you might consider approving them, I ask
you take a good hard look at their business practices. They claim on
web site to offer a "player gaurantee", however, there is no explanation
this,I.E. what requirements need to be met, how much the gaurantee
I understand you are most likely busy, so I will try to be breif. My
dispute with them is this: In Feb 04 I made a withdraw request from an
online casino named, to paraphrase the next 2
months of hell, the casino went under several days after i made the
withdraw. I was told by their casheir support,
times my check was in the mail. After extensive research, and help from
several player advocates, mainly, I finally was
to get a telephone confrence with someone from IGS. That confrence is
@ 1400 hrs EST. I have proof of a pattern of decietful business
practices as
well as out right fraud. Upon request I will foreward you the emails and

chat logs. I am not asking for help, what I am asking for is for this
of behavior be known, and my issue becomes a part of the record. I am
this company will be requesting the seal of approval from your
again i ask that you take a good hard look at what type of business
practices they use. Thank you for your time. Mark S.

Their reply;
-----Original Message-----
From: Tex Rees []
Sent: 27 April 2004 13:08
To: 'mark altland'
Subject: RE: A question about IGS

Dear Mark,

I appreciate the effort you have made to contact eCOGRA with your views.
Any software provider that applies to become a member of eCOGRA must
first be accepted as a client of one our Audit Panel members and then
has to be approved by the independent directors on the eCOGRA board.
Your e-mail will be kept on file for future use.

Kind Regards,
Tex Rees

My reply;
-----Original Message-----
From: mark altland []
Sent: 27 April 2004 14:50
Subject: RE: FW: A question about IGS

Thank you for responding to my concern. I am not someone who is simply
complaining about unfair treatment, or had a streak of bad luck and
the world to hear about it. If and when IGS settles this matter I will
you details of that as well. I am not trying to hurt anybody, and if my
is settled to my satifaction I would like that made part of the record
well. Again, thank you for your time. Mark Altland

His reply:
Hi Mark,

I hope that they do sort out your dispute in the near future, for your
sake and that of the industry. Any follow up information will be greatly

Tex Rees

Now, whats the point? Well the point is this guy took time out of his day to respond to my inquiry. I didn't get an auto reply, he typed me a message. I am impressed, and based upon his last message they are looking to see how IGS responds to my case. I'm not trying to deviate from the purpose of the thread, I'm saying it would appear they (eCogra) are trying to be a legimate orginsation. Just my opinion.
Sounds like a good start.

It may be a very good idea to send them complaints - solved and unsolved - to take into consideration when approving casinos.
I couldn't agree more. They are responsive, and they claim to keep our messages on file. I can just imagine them sitting in a smoke filled board room with some new casino owner grilling them "so Mr. Owner, how did you resolve Mr. xyz's problem.....hmmm....and how are you going to ensure that doesn't happen again" that would be great. Maybe, just maybe the players will have a voice in this certifaction process.
The "bad history" thing is an interesting aspect to regulation that I agree should be considered. To be fair, there would have to be a way to produce evidence of such conduct ie email exchanges or the like.

Over time eCOGRA will build up a record of Seal casinos against who complaints have been lodged, but I would guess that for credibility they would have to fire any casino that attracted too many complaints, because that would indicate that they were not compliant with the regulations.
I agree, I think that will be the ultimate test of their integrity. If, and I am sure it will happen, a casino or group gets too many complaints, how they deal with that scenario will show all of us how legit of an orginasation they really are. Time will tell.
I have no problem with Ecogra as a dispute resolution service. Bryan and the other affiliates who help can benefit from having the workload spread around.

The problems are that most Ecogra casinos are solid, apart from Golden Riviera, so disputes should be rare; and most importantly, anyone setting themselves up as an online casino "regulator" who INCLUDES in the package a claim to actually regulate the SOFTWARE will inevitably have this aspect as the major selling point, software integrity being probably the single most contentious aspect of the entire business. You'll help me get paid? Nice. You claim that the software is valid?? Whoa, that's in a totally different league.

Because this aspect of software regualtion is unverifiable / unverified, it must be assumed by DEFINITION that the claim is fallacious. It cannot be taken "on faith".

While Jetset continues to hype this baby of his I will continue to point out that the excercise is currently flawed, and as such the seals are worthless.
Another inaccurate and pointlessly provocative comment at the close of that post. Caruso is predictable if nothing else.

This is yet another of the spoiling posts he has committed himself to making every time the eCOGRA name comes up.

Let's cut to the chase here.

Despite the fact that they are at the quality end of the casino scale and are not often the source of player complaints, we have a number of casinos who want to distinguish themselves from less reputable operations by offering a genuinely more controlled, superior and safer gambling environment to the players.

eCOGRA is launched as an independent third party vehicle to help them do this by setting player-friendly rules and making sure they abide by them. Following research, it decides to use independent, third party inspection bodies like PwC, which in addition to inspection and monitoring services analyses every gaming transaction through proprietary software to assess overall gaming fairness.

Some 17 other aspects of player-sensitive regulation are covered too (it's not simply a dispute resolution service as Caruso would have you believe in his attempts to belittle eCOGRA).

If you think PwC is "just an accounting firm" as one poster has suggested, it should be understood that it is an international multi-disciplined business services group employing over 50 000 professionals worldwide. Unlike Enron etc it has an impeccable reputation which it is averse to putting at risk under any circumstances.

Despite a bad industry history with player protection predecessors, most players and industry people take a cynical view but are open minded enough to be prepared to let eCOGRA show what it can do in an industry currently bereft of effective regulation.

Not so Caruso and a few others who have made it their business to consistently scorn and belittle the considerable effort and cost involved. This is mainly on the grounds that the proprietary Total Gaming Transaction Review testing process used by PwC for some years is not verified by some other unspecified body.

Will this ongoing spoiling play give players a reliable indication of where they can expect as routine fair games, efficient service, timeous payouts...and an organisation that they can turn to if they don't get these advantages?

Of course not.

Have they suggested any constructive and practical alternative regulatory system to the eCOGRA initiative?


Have they had the grace to recognise that eCOGRA staff have already assisted in disputes, with positive results?

Judging by this latest post, no.
Jetset, your constant, repetitive use of these pejorative adjectives is tiresome. All my posts are factual and measured - you can't extend me that same courtesy for some reason. It doesn't matter how much you keep churning them out, any unbiased reader will appreciate the validity of my comments. Secretive, unverified and unverifiable software "results analysis" is worth no more than the paper they're printed on. They are figures. They are nothing else.

Yes, Ecogra will be a valuable dispute resolution service. And apparently this has already been tested and proved - all to the good.

No, their claim to "regulate" and "approve" the actual SOFTWARE is by definition valueless until they publish the results along with all relevant details of the collection process by way of proving the authenticity of the figures. This is nothing to ask - they have the information. So, let's have it. No? Why? Do they not see the enormous value of providing this evidence and PROVING the validity of their TGTR process? "Prove" Micogaming fair? Good grief, the scope is limitless. Safe, guarenteed online gambling. Manna from heaven for the industry.

So why nothing? May I speculate that the reason may be that they canNOT provide evidence which does not exist, because in fact all they do is accept numbers on faith from Microgaming, alla PWC? Or even that there are NO actual tests performed? What is there to persuade me otherwise?

Maybe the numbers are genuine. Maybe the tests are valid.

"Maybe" is meaningless.

You can continue to churn out the "pointless" "provocative" "closed-minded" "scorn" "belittle" ad infinitum comments in the hope of persuading somebody who doesn't actually read them. That's your priviledge. While my objections - and the same objections of practically ALL other informed players who have chosen to comment - remain valid, I will UNHESITATINGLY repeat them, as you UNHESITATINGLY insult me.
"Yes, Ecogra will be a valuable dispute resolution service. And apparently this has already been tested and proved - all to the good."

Just about the only positive thing (as usual) I see in your response is this, which was presumably wrung from you by my critical comment regarding your lack of grace.

You persistently ignore the scope of eCOGRA regulations in constant attempts to denigrate this body at any cost.

I will equally energetically attack your negative speculation on eCOGRA for as long as you maliciously attempt to damage a genuine movement forward that is of benefit to all involved in this industry other than the shysters.

Your posts are neither factual or measured imo. Do you seriously think that an organisation like PwC would "May I speculate that the reason may be that they canNOT provide evidence which does not exist, because in fact all they do is accept numbers on faith from Microgaming, alla PWC? Or even that there are NO actual tests performed? What is there to persuade me otherwise?"

We're talking about an internationally respected group of considerable reputation and gravitas here, and they presumably have their own reasons for not divulging the analytical processes involved in their proprietary system.

Perhaps you should devote some of your time to seeking answers from them directly instead of using your unspecified verification issue with the TGTR in attempts to discourage support for eCOGRA.

It is just as well that others do not have your totally negative attitude that insists on trying to destroy one of the most promising player protection initiatives in years without making any constructive move forward yourself.
I see nothing negative in Caruso's posts.

After sending numerous emails to PWC in regards to TGTR, I know that I am deliberately being kept in the dark.

Thier contractual agreement with MGS and other software developers prevents them from telling me the process.

So why should I trust them, Jetset?


As for Ecogra, there is nothing INDEPENDENT about them. How can they make guarantees of fairness without disclosing thier methodology? The truth is they can't.
You guys can argue this until the cows come home - but nobody will know for sure for a couple of years.

Being on such opposite ends of the spectrum of opinions, some people will have to eat their words at some point.

I am happy to see any attempt this industry makes to self regulate. Lessons are learned and progress is made. I like to see positive action, not just the pointing out of faults. For that reason, I am going to support eCOGRA.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings