PriceWaterhouseCoopers

[Simmo!]

Looking around today it seems most casinos have PWC touted on their sites as in "Payouts independently audited by...".

A very respected firm (over here at least) but is this the sign of a trustworthy casino would you say?

Simmo!

 

[jpm]

Oh the can of worms you just opened, you have no idea!

 

[cipher]

Oh the can of worms you just opened, you have no idea!

Oh come on JPM. Simmo you have no idea what kind of pond scum Price Waterhouse Coopers is. But a simple search of the Casino Meister archives will give you a very good idea. Have a good one.

 

[thesmacker]

The PWC logo is just a stamp bought by the casino to make it look more legitimate. For all intents and purposes it is meaningless.
Cheers

 

[caruso]

Meaningless - nothing more than a rubber stamp of fictional figures on a sheaf of papers handed over by the casino, for which priviledge they pay a high price. Standard casino deceipt to suck in the mugs.

 

[Simmo!]

Uh-oh. I sense there's trouble-a-brewing...

Thanks guys and sorry.

Thread Closed ;-)

 

[jetset]

You sure have, Simmo - perhaps intentionally?

That's your right on a message board, and as you have seen here there are some posters who do not have a favourable opinion of PwC despite it's sound international reputation as an independent business services organisation of some significance. I suspect that that has something to do with the failed OCA project and the endless debates on the TGTR process which you will find in abundance in the archives here.

It is unlikely that opinions will change.

 

[Simmo!]

Hi Jetset: not intentional, honest. I only joined here about 2 months ago and i really should have searched back like Cipher suggested. I really should know better - guess my Avatar is quite a good representation fo me right now

 

[jetset]

No explanation necessary, Simmo - as I said it is your right to post whatever you wish within the rules laid down by our host here.

It seemed to me that the question was of a deliberately provocative nature designed to elicit exactly the response it received from some members here, who have in the past shown that they have strong if perhaps (i.m.o.)misguided views on this multi-national company.

Rather extreme example in Caruso's inimitable "style": "Meaningless - nothing more than a rubber stamp of fictional figures on a sheaf of papers handed over by the casino, for which priviledge they pay a high price. Standard casino deceipt to suck in the mugs."

That being the case, I felt it necessary to post a contrary view, because in my personal interaction at conferences with PwC officials I have been impressed by their professionalism and commitment - and it's my right to say so.

Rather than regurgitating extensive debates that have meandered on for weeks at a time here, I will instead recommend that you go to the archives and read the differing views on issues connected with PwC, eCOGRA and all these allegedly "crooked" casinos in order to reach your own conclusions.

 

[Simmo!]

I'll do just that Jetset

Now... Die Thread, Die!

(hmmm...does that come out as "The Thread, The" in your country CM )

 

[Lukas85]

I loved this episode :-D

 

[Simmo!]

What...the Simpsons episode referenced just there or the PwC episode Lukas?

 

[Lukas85]

Simpsons of course ;-)

 

[Simmo!]

Phew Sehr gut. Oder "Tres Bonn" (sic) pasque

 

[jpm]

Oh come on JPM.

Told ya so!

 

[LuckyOne]

So, what's the point?

Well, guys, everything is great, but should I or should I not look for a PWC stamp while choosing casino to play?

 

[nafanny29]

You mean that there are actually casinos out there on the net without a PWC stamp. Surely that cant be true LOL

 

[Simmo!]

You mean that there are actually casinos out there on the net without a PWC stamp. Surely that cant be true LOL

Just broken images I think

Well, guys, everything is great, but should I or should I not look for a PWC stamp while choosing casino to play?

Ah what the hell...thread ain't gonna lie down, the worms are out and alive and kicking (JPM :notworthy ) so why not....

At the risk of getting my head chewed off by the worms, here's my understanding of it from reading back, up and around LuckyOne. I have no doubt that people will be quick to correct me, being new to this and all that

[takes a big breath]...

PWC offer independent auditing to casinos and often groups of casinos. They also offer the service through eCOGRA which as i understand it, was set up by Microgaming to "approve" casinos who were trustworthy (and happened to use MG software). A similar operation was also set up by RTG and known as "SafeBet"(?!). Both have received sideway glances of disapproval from various areas online. Nuff said.

PWC are without doubt a reputable outfit and I have no reason to believe that they would want to be associated with cowboy outfits. The PWC "stamp" seems to be used by any casino who has received the "seal of eCOGRA" ("run little Hobbit, run") or indeed, uses PWC themselves to audit. However, that said, i have read up on eCOGRA and it seems to me that what they do does appear to make sense in that it is making an attempt to do what CM and others believe they should do: ensure casinos that operate on MG software pay on time, act fair blah-de-blah-de-blah.

One thing that i'd be surprised to learn would be that if there had been any major problem with a casino in the past, PWC would still allow them to use the stamp. Same applies to major sponsorshp deals - another thing that i believe carries some weight. You can bet your bottom dollar (sic) that the Minardi Formula 1 team (or Monsieur Rodman) would have checked out their sponsors (Golden Palace i think) before they gave them a public vehicle (sic again!).

So, in essence, the PWC stamp in itself may not necessarily be a total sign of trust (after all, if a casino is disreputable enough to play nasty, why wouldn't they just stick the PWC badge on the site and see how long they can get away with it 'til their wrists are slapped?) but I take it as a sign that it is worth maybe looking further into their "about us", "play fair" and "security" information in a bit more depth. I mean Littlewoods don't mention PWC but they are audited by the Isle Of Man Government which by all accounts, is far tougher!

So, er, thats how i understand it. Over to the mob...if they're not already fed up with this topic

Ian

 

[jetset]

Whilst I have to look askance at the "worms" simile LOL I will attempt to correct this post, taking up yet more bandwidth over something that has been endlessly hashed and rehashed:

QUOTE PWC offer independent auditing to casinos and often groups of casinos. They also offer the service through eCOGRA which as i understand it, was set up by Microgaming to "approve" casinos who were trustworthy (and happened to use MG software). A similar operation was also set up by RTG and known as "SafeBet"(?!). Both have received sideway glances of disapproval from various areas online. Nuff said.UNQUOTE

Not nearly 'nuff said I'm afraid. PwC is a world wide business services organisation employing something over 160 000 professionals and regarded as one of the top 8 firms in its sphere. A (probably very small) part of that business is the TGTR process or Total Gaming Transaction Review which has caused so much debate here. TGTR has been operating for five years or so and consists of every transaction at a casino being recorded and subjected to a range of I believe 11 or more analytical tests to check on game fairness. Any anomalies are flagged and given detailed attention by qualified people in the company, which is paid for it's services but remains independent.

Boss, MGS, Cryptologic, CON and other leading companies have all used the system, which also publishes monthly summaries of the overall payout percentages of each participating casino.

eCOGRA is primarily an independent player protection body. That makes sense in an unregulated industry where crap casinos are bad news for everyone. It functions by providing a player-sensitive set of operating regulations and casino probity requirements which are enforced by out-sourced inspection and monitoring. A player dispute service is also operated and recently issued it's first public report.

On its foundation eCOGRA was jointly funded by Casino On Net as probably the Internet's largest and most successful online casino operator, and one of the top three software providers for Internet casinos, Microgaming.

To guarantee its independence, the Board of Directors includes three very well known, and very independent, integrity-driven executives from the broader industry - Hirst, Catania and Galston. You can read their biogs just about everywhere including this site. These guys have control of the eCOGRA regulatory and seal award process, as well as its enforcement.

A study of the makeup and history of the thankfully now defunct "SafeBet" will show that there are few similarities with eCOGRA, for example there was little evidence of any interest in resolving player disputes, there was no independent inspection and monitoring process, there were no external and independent directors in control and it was probably nowhere near as well funded and organised.

QUOTE PWC are without doubt a reputable outfit and I have no reason to believe that they would want to be associated with cowboy outfits. The PWC "stamp" seems to be used by any casino who has received the "seal of eCOGRA" ("run little Hobbit, run") or indeed, uses PWC themselves to audit. However, that said, i have read up on eCOGRA and it seems to me that what they do does appear to make sense in that it is making an attempt to do what CM and others believe they should do: ensure casinos that operate on MG software pay on time, act fair blah-de-blah-de-blah.UNQUOTE

This is serious stuff. Any of the 44 CON and MGS casinos (and other software providers are negotiating with eCOGRA I am told) that displays the eCOGRA seal does so only on the understanding that:

(a) the management and the operating entities have to withstand real and detailed external probity checks, including financial status

(b) their systems have in some cases to be reorganised at considerable expense to comply with the eCOGRA requirements and regulations for efficiency and better player service

(c) they agree to be thoroughly inspected by PwC approval and compliance teams that actually stay onsite for up to two weeks, and to address any system found wanting such as Support, accounting, management, staff training

(d) they agree to every transaction being monitored and analysed on an ongoing basis by an external agency - the TGTR. And to further physical compliance inspections on a regular basis.

(e) they agree to continued adherence to the regulations (called eGAP) which covers every aspect of operational and business conduct and imposes standards.

(f) they agree to promptly deal with any player dispute and if necessary to abide by the (escalated) ruling of the eCOGRA Fair Gaming Advocate if a resolution cannot be achieved at casino level.

It's not something to be entered on lightly and represents a serious commitment to efficiency and fair treatment. I don't understand the comment ("run little Hobbit, run") and will therefore not try to answer it.

QUOTE One thing that i'd be surprised to learn would be that if there had been any major problem with a casino in the past, PWC would still allow them to use the stamp. Same applies to major sponsorshp deals - another thing that i believe carries some weight. You can bet your bottom dollar (sic) that the Minardi Formula 1 team (or Monsieur Rodman) would have checked out their sponsors (Golden Palace i think) before they gave them a public vehicle (sic again!).

So, in essence, the PWC stamp in itself may not necessarily be a total sign of trust (after all, if a casino is disreputable enough to play nasty, why wouldn't they just stick the PWC badge on the site and see how long they can get away with it 'til their wrists are slapped?) but I take it as a sign that it is worth maybe looking further into their "about us", "play fair" and "security" information in a bit more depth. I mean Littlewoods don't mention PWC but they are audited by the Isle Of Man Government which by all accounts, is far tougher! UNQUOTE

eCOGRA and PwC will (and have) taken action against any online casino that displays their seals / logos without complying with all the conditions pertaining thereto - that's fundamental business practice, and any player who comes across any logo that does not link directly to the eCOGRA or PwC site is welcome to inform those bodies, who will pursue it.

Regarding casinos with a past record, this has also been the subject of debate here as people have differing personal views. Some believe that the adage "a leopard never changes it's spots" should be applied and that there should be no redemption once a casino has a past.

Others take a perhaps more lenient view that if there have been no transgressions in the recent past, that a casino should be allowed to prove that it has reformed and is operating in a safe and honest manner. eCOGRA requires PwC as its independent inspection arm to check for past history and assess it. If the casino management and systems comply in every respect with the tough probity and eGAP requirements, and continue to operate in compliance then the convention is to award the seal.

However, all seal holders know that seals can be very publicly revoked as well as awarded.

 

[Simmo!]

Ooh-er - Cheers Jetset.

And sorry to be stealing your bandwidth but you know its worth it

(Don't get why you disapprove of the worms simile btw)

 

[caruso]

LOL, "Run, little Hobbit, run"?

You mean "Swim, little red herring, swim".

Well, guys, everything is great, but should I or should I not look for a PWC stamp while choosing casino to play?

Fella, listen to the players, not the industry mouthpieces. PWC is a bought and paid for joke. Not ONE informed player pays the slightest attention to any of the "seals" all casinos carry 10 to 20 of which on their homepages. PWC, OPA, Safebet, whatever. Certainly, PWC "authentications" must be the single most long-standing casino joke since the beginning. Rubber stamps for mega bucks.

If you want to know about casino reliability and all the attendant issues, post a question or do a search. Jetset might reply. I might reply. Either way, you'll get a BUNCH of answers from real players. Some might on occasions be spammers, but they'll get picked up and dusted off. That's where the information you seek is located - not this bogus "seal" claptrap.

 

[nafanny29]

Well said caruso. Ive been gambling online for quite a while now but only found this forum 2 weeks ago. I have learnt more in the 2 weeks than in the last 2 years about the whole online gambling business!!!

Many thanks to you and everyone here for your useful tips/info

 

[jetset]

"Fella, listen to the players, not the industry mouthpieces. PWC is a bought and paid for joke. Not ONE informed player pays the slightest attention to any of the "seals" all casinos carry 10 to 20 of which on their homepages. PWC, OPA, Safebet, whatever. Certainly, PWC "authentications" must be the single most long-standing casino joke since the beginning. Rubber stamps for mega bucks."

No industry mouthpiece - I've been posting here for years and I try and get involved and tell it like it is, usually for the benefit of the player, although if I think a casino is in the right I will say so.

But as usual we have sweeping, false and totally unsubstantiated sideline kibbitizing and tired cliches from the all-knowing Caruso....the above quote from his latest post is another gem from a strange and often extreme view of the industry.

Nothing I posted above is anything but fact.

BTW, nothing in this exchange detracts from the value of the message boards to the player as a research tool, or the ongoing sterling contributions of player advocates like Bryan...but regulated operations are the best way to safeguard player interests in the longterm by obviating hassles before they become disputes.

 

[bethug]

eron was suppose to be regulated, and they robbed us blind.

 

[jetset]

That must be about the tenth time you've used that line here and elsewhere Bethug - and the answer is the same.

Is international society forever going to condemn and dismiss every attempt to improve or police worldwide business on the grounds that there have been some spectacular failures at individual companies? Does it mean that all business is corrupt and fraudulent? Of course not.