More eCOGRA Seals Awarded

[spearmaster]

Good catch. There is no justification whatsoever for the seal to say "Players Seal of Approval".

I assume word will get back to eCOGRA very quickly.

 

[Casinomeister]

To begin with, I believe the "Players Seal of Approval" is meant for the players, not from the players -- this makes sense. I don't see a problem with this.

A lot of the criticism made against eCogra in this thread has been made moot by the inclusion of other software providers Cassava for one, and there are a few others on the table at the moment.

I've met Andrew Beveridge a number of times in the past, and last week I had the opportunity to meet with Michael Hirst, and Frank Catania as well. I also have a good insight on what is happening behind the scenes - from the inspection process to player complaint procedures. To compare this operation to another "Safebet" is mindless. Since eCOGRA's inception, there has been plenty of "transparent" information given to ensure the "informed" players that comparing the two is nonsensical.

I honestly feel that this organization is the closest thing to regulation. All of us (players, webmasters, operators, licensors, turnkey solution providers, etc.) have awaited an organization that has a criteria that casinos must comply with, and that continually scrutinizes these operations.

eCOGRA is open for any software provider. And once the software provider is in, then the casinos are eligible for membership. Licensing jurisdictions are irrelevant since it is the eGOGRA standards that need to be met. This is a very good thing, and will be the closest thing to regulation as we will possibly get.

Hopefully within the upcoming months, we'll all get a good feel on how this is beneficial for all of us - naysayers as well.

 

[jpm]

To begin with, I believe the "Players Seal of Approval" is meant for the players, not from the players -- this makes sense. I don't see a problem with this.

I think you're right about this Bryan. I was thinking about it the other day and it definitely depends on where you place the emphasis. I guess its just poor choice of wording, since it almost sounds like it was a vote by players that awarded the seal.

 

[GrandMaster]

I've met Andrew Beveridge a number of times in the past, and last week I had the opportunity to meet with Michael Hirst, and Frank Catania as well. I also have a good insight on what is happening behind the scenes - from the inspection process to player complaint procedures. To compare this operation to another "Safebet" is mindless. Since eCOGRA's inception, there has been plenty of "transparent" information given to ensure the "informed" players that comparing the two is nonsensical.

Can you share with us any information on how the fairness of the games is verified? There is no transparency here.

 

[Casinomeister]

Can you share with us any information on how the fairness of the games is verified? There is no transparency here.

Not much more than I can say except which is detailed on eCOGRA's website here:

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

here:

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

and here:

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

How is this not transparent?

Does anyone know if the Nevada Gaming Commission

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

these same sort of requirements for their land based casino games? I'm looking for the same sort of guidelines, but I don't see them right off the bat - they may be hidden somewhere.

What I am getting at is that what is explained in detail at the eCOGRA site indicates "Fair Gaming", and it seems that they have placed their requirements out there for public view unlike a government run gaming commission that is undoubtably (?) fair. What more information do you want?

 

[Casinomeister]

I think you're right about this Bryan. I was thinking about it the other day and it definitely depends on where you place the emphasis. I guess its just poor choice of wording, since it almost sounds like it was a vote by players that awarded the seal.

It was confirmed today that this was meant as for the players, not from the players.

 

[caruso]

It was confirmed today that this was meant as for the players, not from the players.

Sorry, it doesn't matter what they intended. "Players' Seal Of Approval" means "Seal of approval of the players", ie. something either created by, or rubber-stamped and "authorized" by us, the players. It clearly does NOT read as "Hey players, here's a seal for you".

Admittedly, it's a tricky little piece of wording - manufactured by this increasingly tricky little organization.

What more information do you want?

Their stated intentions are irrelevant. Evidence of the workings of the collection process leading to confirmation that the data is genuine, and, beyond that, those actual figures (corroborated as genuine) with the tests applied to "verify" their "randomness".

Without this, the "seal" is meaningless.

But we already know that.

 

[kniepm]

Admittedly, it's a tricky little piece of wording - manufactured by this increasingly tricky little organization.

Their stated intentions are irrelevant. Evidence of the workings of the collection process leading to confirmation that the data is genuine, and, beyond that, those actual figures (corroborated as genuine) with the tests applied to "verify" their "randomness".

Without this, the "seal" is meaningless.

But we already know that.

Does someone this sure that everyone is cheating actually deposit and play on line? That would be a contradiction of your own somewhat twisted logic, no?

 

[GrandMaster]

The thread that refuses to die

Cryptography was still extremely primitive in 1883, and Auguste obviously was not around when the Enigma machine was put into use by Germany during WW2. Take a look at how the allied cryptographers broke the Germans communications using that device. They had captured books of keys, but they didn't have the algorithm to use with them and as such, the keys were useless. This was more important with the later versions of the Enigma box that added another code wheel and user configurable jumper connections to strengthen the encryption.

Auguste Kerckhoff was the first to state the principle, but it still holds true today. Here are a few more sentences from the same page:
"If an algorithm is used in products, it will be reverse engineered. Once-secret algorithms that have been reverse engineered include RC4, all digital cellular encryption algorithms, the DVD and DIVX video encryption algorithms, and the FireWire algorithms. Even algorithms buried deep in military hardware will be reverse engineered: the Enigma during World War II, and just about every NATO and Warsaw Pact algorithm during the Cold War. (We don't know those, but the respective militaries do.) It is a good design to assume that the enemy knows the details of your algorithms, because eventually they will."

I would add to the list of failed secrets the MediaMax CD3 copy protection system that can be circumvented by holding down the Shift key.

An algorithm requires significant investment into hardware or software, but keys are easy to generate, today's computers negotiate a new key for each secure connection. An algorithm may have 2 to the power of 128 or even 256 possible keys, whereas the number of potential algorithms is probably less than a hundred. Here is a "real world" example. A safe may have a million possible combinations. Knowing that a particular safe was made by Chubb won't help you much in opening it. On the other hand, imagine that you find a piece of paper with "combination to the safe 60-28-34" written on it. You may only have to try a handful of safes if you are in a small town. It may not work, the piece of paper may have been dropped by someone from hundreds of miles away who was just passing through, but you have a much better chance if you know the combination and have to find the right safe than the other way around.

 

[spearmaster]

Sorry, it doesn't matter what they intended. "Players' Seal Of Approval" means "Seal of approval of the players"

Well, let's say that it can be easily misconstrued. I am in agreement with Caruso here - the "intent" is not the issue - its the "impression" that counts.

I would strongly suggest that eCOGRA find a better way to issue something which indicates that the casino is eCOGRA-accredited - which is much more accurate - rather than giving the impression that eCOGRA is a rubber-stamp organization.