Pricewaterhouse to pay$50million settlement (can we say fraud)

[GrandMaster]

Bryan you said "eCOGRA is not a casino watchdog." Question: If this is true, then what is its exact purpose if not to be a watchdog and regulate this online gaming industry ?

Bryan you also said "You won't find eCOGRA reporting on trademark violation issues, or alerting players on deceptive spam scams, or notifying players on software that REALLY cheats" Question: If eCOGRA is not going to "notify players on software that REALLY cheats" then again how are they helping us players... ?

I think this means that ecogra is only dealing with its "approved casinos". It is not going to get involved if you have a problem with Slots Alley or Warren Cloud.

The biggest problem problem with ecogra is the inspection, approval and audit processes are secret, so nobody outside ecogra and PwC know how much they are worth. The Casinomeister regularly mentions how the people running OPA have no qualifications, but what are PwC's qualifications in testing random numbers and game fairness? They could publish that the randomness tests were devised by Prof X of the University of Y, then I could look up his publications, and check his reputation. I also want to point out that ecogra's for game fairness is inadequate, Rule 109.R.5 is flawed, which gives me the impression that nobody with appropriate mathematical training was involved in formulating the rules.

The other problem is that there is no player input at any stage, for example, as a player, I would place much greater emphasis on truth in advertising, and I would consider factually correct advertising (113.P.3) as compulsory, not just a suggested practice.

 

[RobWin]

Spearmaster, Thanks for the clarification... and Grandmaster, point agreed, this would be useful info.

 

[spearmaster]

Rule 109.R.5 is flawed, which gives me the impression that nobody with appropriate mathematical training was involved in formulating the rules.

Would you mind elaborating? It might be an interesting point to look at - in all honesty I have not gone over eCOGRAs rules and seals with a fine-tooth comb, otherwise I would have spotted the "Players Seal of Approval" slipup. And I'm sure eCOGRA would like to know if indeed there is some sort of flaw there.

 

[RobWin]

I am still confused as to what the exact purpose of eCOGRA is, especially after just reading all of their "Generally Accepted Practices" ..... one in particular that concerns me is this one :



100 PAYMENT TO AND RECEIPTS FROM PLAYERS

OBJECTIVE:

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


METHODOLOGY:

The eCOGRA audit panel shall ensure acceptable financial and control practices are used to meet this objective.


MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

Receipt from and Payment to Players SP O
100.R.1 All receipts from and payments to players must be conducted through a formal documented process.
100.R.2 All information regarding receipts and payments shall be logged and retained by the applicable parties.
100.R.3 Bank reconciliation procedures must be demonstrated.

Excluded Players SP O
100.R.4 Any uncontested funds left in an account, previously de-activated by the operator, shall be remitted to the owner of the funds.



My Question : What about Time Frame, there is absolutely nothing stated about the Time Frame that approved eCOGRA Casinos have to get payment to their players other than "Payment requests/receipts shall be efficiently and promptly attended to"

To me if it is the casinos policy to promptly pay their players within (ie: 60 days or so) and this is considered to be their standard policy then again how is eCOGRA regulating this because all eCOGRA states is that this is just their objective and no mention of any timeline in their MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS section as you can see above.

 

[RobWin]

Another Confusing Statement that I just read from eCOGRA's site page listing their approved casinos :


"Accredited sites are subject to regular monitoring of their operation. Whilst eCOGRA makes its best endeavors, no representation or warranty can be given that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements. Therefore eCOGRA cannot assume responsibility for consequences resulting from the use of any Internet gaming site bearing the eCOGRA Players Seal of Approval. eCOGRA is not liable to any person or group of persons, firm, company or entity for losses of any description that a user of an accredited site may suffer."


The sentence that I underlined above is the one that concerns me, could you imagine if the New Jersey or the Nevada Gaming Commission made a statement to this effect ?

If any games at any given site is NOT AT ALL TIMES in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements then how in the world is eCOGRA Regulating this online Gaming Industry ?

Does this also mean that the owners of the sites can manipulate the games and outcomes so that they would not be in regulation with eCOGRA requirements ?

I think these are fair questions that need to be addressed by eCOGRA if they are to be respected by the player community.

 

[spearmaster]

Whilst eCOGRA makes its best endeavors, no representation or warranty can be given that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements.

I take that to mean that, due to the nature of the online gambling industry, it is impossible for them to monitor everything 24/7.

In Vegas, changing the EPROM in a slot machine requires the presence of a Gaming Board representative - so naturally any activity outside of this would be easily noticed.

Online, it might be a bit difficult to require the presence of an eCOGRA official every time a script, software or module is changed, especially considering servers are located all over the world.

So - given these restrictions, they can only do their best. I'd assume that, if a change took place which introduced some sort of bias into the system were to occur, they'd notice it soon enough, but surely not immediately. Kind of hard to guarantee something which is physically difficult to do, I guess.

Personally, I'd accept that - car manufacturers warrantee their products to be free from defect but they cannot possibly monitor some sort of change or defect which occurs because of, say, an authorized dealer with a rookie mechanic who puts the parts in backwards, for example.

 

[RobWin]

I take that to mean that, due to the nature of the online gambling industry, it is impossible for them to monitor everything 24/7.

Online, it might be a bit difficult to require the presence of an eCOGRA official every time a script, software or module is changed, especially considering servers are located all over the world.

Yes I agree Spear that servers are located all over the world but Microgaming is not. I would hope that if in the occurance of script, software or module is changed that would modify the outcome of game results it would be across the board, or another words at every approved eCOGRA microgaming casino and not just a few.

And when this change did occur I think just like in Vegas or Atlantic City that a represenative from eCOGRA could and should be present if this online Industry is trully to be regulated as is land based casinos.

If this is not done thru Microgamings Headquarters so that it is an across the board change at all Micro casinos then it should not be done. Otherwise this would be stating that each operator of the casino software package could make percentage game outcome changes.. could it not ?

 

[spearmaster]

Because I'm not sure who has control over what with a Microgaming casino, I'm in no position to answer LOL. But keep in mind that Casino On Net has been approved as well...

 

[RobWin]

Because I'm not sure who has control over what with a Microgaming casino, I'm in no position to answer LOL. But keep in mind that Casino On Net has been approved as well...

Yea, you and me both, maybe microgaming will come on here and let us know, huh..LOL

Casino On Net also should be monitored the same way I believe, or their software changes anyway.

:notworthy

 

[rowmare]

Hi Rob.

IMO it looks like a common legal disclaimer that is a part of almost any legal document and meant to cover their hineys in case of unforseen circumstances beyond their control and mandate. Quite necessary in this litigeous world.

It means that they eCOBRA aren't able to monitor every casino every minute, and will not be held responsible should the casino software or methods of operation change between check-ups. Pretty standard wording.

It would be impossible for any licensing or regulating body to have that much control over anything - unless it was god doing the regulating.

 

[Sodax77]

To everyone:
Wanna help?

eCOGRA, PWC, Safebet.org, Futurebet, Warren Cloud, FL... whatever

Visit Outdated URL (Invalid)

 

[jetset]

From the outset, Cassava and Microgaming have made it clear that they are the initial funders of eCOGRA - there has never been any secrecy about this.

Once the initial basic infrastructure was in place, the three independent directors (Hirst, Catania and Galston - their qualifications and biographies have been repeatedly posted) were appointed and charged with implementing and controlling the regulatory and Seal procedure from applications to inspection, awards and monitoring.

These directors have also made it clear that all software providers who subscribe to eCOGRA's ideals of regulation and fair play are welcome to apply and, if they meet the requirements they will be accepted as members. The CEO of eCOGRA recently announced that negotiations with other software providers were currently ongoing.

The objective of eCOGRA is to provide a set of practical and player-sensitive regulations for casinos to implement in order to deliver safe, best practice gaming and fast, responsive and honest player treatment. It has also appointed a Fair Gaming Advocate and an online complaint system for those players who have hassles with Seal casinos and have been unable to resolve them at casino level. The inspection process involves management probity and financial stability investigations to safeguard against underfunding.

Non-compliance by a Seal casino can lead to the revocation of the seal.

The regulations cover all operational aspects affecting players and once implemented the casino is required to undergo a stringent third party inspection that may take several days in order to be accepted as a Seal holder. Subsequent to that the casino concerned must accept periodic physical reviews and be part of the Total Gaming Transaction Review (TGTR) process that is the proprietary system for continuous monitoring and game fairness used by third party business service provider Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Message boards and eCOGRA's own dispute process are also monitored to ensure good continued casino practice.

It is this TGTR that is most debated, because PwC as an international and independent professional business services provider of some substance has declined to open its proprietary system to public inspection, giving eCOGRA detractors the opportunity to dismiss the process as non-transparent and therefore dishonest or unacceptable. For the same reasons, noone has been able to prove that the TGTR does not provide the level of assurance that PwC says it does, so a stalemate exists despite the fact that the 43 Seal casinos thus far appointed are generally accepted as providing fair gaming and standing behind the player in the event of casino failure.

The concept behind eCOGRA is to make sure that a set of player-friendly regulations are not only implemented but strictly enforced in casinos carrying its seal. Because those regulations are specifically designed to improve efficiency and player treatment, the idea is that players will enjoy a safer, more enjoyable online gambling experience, especially regarding timeous payouts, responsive Support and fast resolutions in any disputes.

On the casino side, the advantage is an opportunity to deploy under expert supervision business systems that improve performance, and of course there is the assumption that players will exercise some preference for safe, honest gambling venues.

The disclaimers are fairly standard lawyer-speak which eCOGRA presumably feels are necessary in a litigeous environment.

Player input is welcome, and if you have constructive and detailed suggestions for improvement to the regulations you might like to submit them to eCOGRA directly, where they will certainly be carefully considered.

 

[GrandMaster]

It is this TGTR that is most debated, because PwC as an international and independent professional business services provider of some substance has declined to open its proprietary system to public inspection, giving eCOGRA detractors the opportunity to dismiss the process as non-transparent and therefore dishonest or unacceptable. For the same reasons, noone has been able to prove that the TGTR does not provide the level of assurance that PwC says it does, so a stalemate exists despite the fact that the 43 Seal casinos thus far appointed are generally accepted as providing fair gaming and standing behind the player in the event of casino failure.

Player input is welcome, and if you have constructive and detailed suggestions for improvement to the regulations you might like to submit them to eCOGRA directly, where they will certainly be carefully considered.

As TGTR is secret, the onus is on ecogra to prove that it really does something useful. I am still waiting to see what qualifies PwC to test randon number generators.

I you go to buy a used car, the dealer will tell you that they carry out an 85 point or 110 point or whatever inspection process on all used cars. I believe that at some better dealerships they actually do it. Would I buy a used car just on the basis of the dealership's mechanic asserting that it is a good car? No way. I would pay my own mechanic to check it out.

Everyone should be aware that ecogra's criteria don't define a fair game. Since you seem to have a better access to ecogra than most of us, would you ask them about rule R.109.5?

 

[jetset]

I personally have always believed that the onus of proof lies with the accuser, but be that as it may I have previously informed you Grandmaster that I do not possess either the expertise or this knowledge and consequently I recommended that you go direct to the proprietors (PwC) or eCOGRA with your questions.

My understanding is that because this is a specialised area, eCOGRA have outsourced it in good faith to Pricewaterhouse Coopers as a respectable multi-national group with the specialised skills required to devise and operate such a system.

eCOGRA is obviously comfortable with the level of fair gaming assurance that the TGTR system used by PwC offers, despite the negative possibilities that you and others have suggested on this aspect in your contention that it totally invalidates the entire eCOGRA initiative.

And it has to be said that in general the Seal casinos seem to be regarded even by Microgaming critics as having fair gambling software.

 

[bethug]

"Pricewaterhouse Coopers as a respectable multi-national group with the specialised skills required to devise and operate such a system."

Micro and few other software compaines , pays them alot of money, The only thing i respect about them is that they make money. It hard for me and others to swallow that PWC which gets paid from micro is testing

Why is the testing of the software has to be a secret, that seem fishy. That seal dont mean crap, unless some one in detail show us how they test the casino software.

 

[GrandMaster]

I personally have always believed that the onus of proof lies with the accuser, but be that as it may I have previously informed you Grandmaster that I do not possess either the expertise or this knowledge and consequently I recommended that you go direct to the proprietors (PwC) or eCOGRA with your questions.

My understanding is that because this is a specialised area, eCOGRA have outsourced it in good faith to Pricewaterhouse Coopers as a respectable multi-national group with the specialised skills required to devise and operate such a system.

eCOGRA is obviously comfortable with the level of fair gaming assurance that the TGTR system used by PwC offers, despite the negative possibilities that you and others have suggested on this aspect in your contention that it totally invalidates the entire eCOGRA initiative.

Jetset: I am not accusing ecogra of anything. I am just stating the fact that nobody has provided anything to back up the claims about TGTR, the only "proof" offered is that PwC is a respected firm of accountants, some people will even argue with that. I am sure they can carry out the accounting aspects of the job well, but RNG testing is not an accounting matter. As long as everything is kept secret, I cannot accept ecogra's assurance that the games are fair.

I repeat that ecogra criteria for game fairness and randomness are inadequate, I don't know whether deliberately, through oversight or lack of understanding. For example, if the results of the game are the same at the same time each day, it can still satisfy ecogra's criteria. Would you consider this to be acceptable? I e-mailed them about this issue, but it still has not been fixed. According to the Casinomeister's webcast, you met people from ecogra, you are in a much better position to get an answer from them about rule 109.R.5.

 

[sw2003]

Jetset: I am not accusing ecogra of anything. I am just stating the fact that nobody has provided anything to back up the claims about TGTR, the only "proof" offered is that PwC is a respected firm of accountants, some people will even argue with that. I am sure they can carry out the accounting aspects of the job well, but RNG testing is not an accounting matter. As long as everything is kept secret, I cannot accept ecogra's assurance that the games are fair.

I repeat that ecogra criteria for game fairness and randomness are inadequate, I don't know whether deliberately, through oversight or lack of understanding. For example, if the results of the game are the same at the same time each day, it can still satisfy ecogra's criteria. Would you consider this to be acceptable? I e-mailed them about this issue, but it still has not been fixed. According to the Casinomeister's webcast, you met people from ecogra, you are in a much better position to get an answer from them about rule 109.R.5.

You might not be happy with having Pricewaterhouse's procedure of
certifying the numbers but it is still better than if they hire some
nobody-knows company to do the job or worse still, no third party
certification altogether.

The game would most certainly not be the same each day. The casinos
are more afraid of that than you lest people would win big by exploiting
such faults. You need to come up with a better example.

 

[GrandMaster]

The game would most certainly not be the same each day. The casinos
are more afraid of that than you lest people would win big by exploiting
such faults. You need to come up with a better example.

A predictable RNG could be useful to the casino, if it were restricted to certain "special accounts", which could be used to launder money, or to transfer money to the casino operator's associates to reduce the casino's profits and save on taxes.

Here is a more serious example. It is possible to design a sequence of dice rolls such that each one has the correct probability distribution, each one is independent of the previous roll, but not independent of the whole history, and such that the house edge on both the pass and don't pass bets is greater than it should be (at the expense of reducing the house edge on craps 12 on the come out roll). This is clearly a rigged game and you cannot do anything about it, even if you know that it is rigged. It would still pass the ecogra criteria for fairness, because they are formulated incorrectly.

 

[rowmare]

Whilst eCOGRA makes its best endeavors, no representation or warranty can be given that the operation of any games at any given site is at all times in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements.

The sentence that I underlined above is the one that concerns me, could you imagine if the New Jersey or the Nevada Gaming Commission made a statement to this effect ?

If any games at any given site is NOT AT ALL TIMES in accordance with the eCOGRA requirements then how in the world is eCOGRA Regulating this online Gaming Industry ?

Does this also mean that the owners of the sites can manipulate the games and outcomes so that they would not be in regulation with eCOGRA requirements ?

I think these are fair questions that need to be addressed by eCOGRA if they are to be respected by the player community.

This is a very good issue to raise - and it just one reason why government regulation of online gambling is something to work towards.

The government commissions have the power to set guidelines and punish those who don't follow them by either fining them or shutting down their business.

As a private enterprise, eCOGRA has no such power, and therefore must put legal disclaimer to the effect that, no, they cannot be held responsible should an online casino make any changes after being approved, or between "check-ups".

 

[sw2003]

This is a very good issue to raise - and it just one reason why government regulation of online gambling is something to work towards.

The government commissions have the power to set guidelines and punish those who don't follow them by either fining them or shutting down their business.

As a private enterprise, eCOGRA has no such power, and therefore must put legal disclaimer to the effect that, no, they cannot be held responsible should an online casino make any changes after being approved, or between "check-ups".

I agree that is a good point to raise! However, how can you enforce anything
at all times? One cannot monitor every one of the casinos at every single
moment so whether that disclaimer is there or not has little consequence in
practice.

We are not supposed to go over the speed limit but when no police is
watching people do that all the time. You just don't have enough police
to patrol the highways. Same thing goes with monitoring casinos' software
compliance.

 

[rowmare]

Allow me to add to my last post: (I merely wanted to point how erroneous the assumption was that eCOGRA would have the ability to punish casinos who tamper with the product in any negative way, as a government commission does, which necessitates the legal disclaimer in question)

Untill such time as there is government regulation (which itself isn't perfect), we have an online gambling industry which is self-regulating.

An organization such as eCOGRA is exactly what is needed to set consitent standards, etc., and I for one hope that they prove themselves and, in the future, a casino not approved by them would be something we will all know to avoid.

Dang, but don't I sound like a stuffed shirt?

 

[jetset]

Interesting points, and the true government regulation could certainly hammer a transgressor in a particular jurisdiction with more punitive measures than, say, removal of a Seal, although it would probably be a bureaucratic and time-consuming process.

The transparency argument notwithstanding, one of the advantages of the PwC TGTR system as I understand it is that it has a continuously monitoring effect insofar as it records and analyses every single transaction (TGTR=Total Gaming Transaction Review) and flags anomalies for more focused investigation.

Given the ultra cautious approach of the legal profession I doiubt that this would remove the necessity for a disclaimer anyway!

 

[RobWin]

Thanks all for opining to my statements and questions, a lot of very knowledgeable folks on here. :notworthy