What on earth is happening to the online casino industry?

[Pinababy69]

I have always been paid by every casino I have ever played at. Never been messed about even, apart from some casinos seeking ID before payment.

Mitch

So have I Mitch. I've had a couple of small stumbling blocks and delays, but nothing major. But you know what? I'm getting to the point where I really am scared to play anywhere but 32Red. I've played nowhere else but there for probably three months now. But that's it, I'm down to one casino.

And I sure as hell don't even feel comfortable referring a player to any casinos, save 2 or 3, where at the very least I'm sure I could help them if they did run into problems.

 

[Linus]

I echo the basic sentiment of the thread, with the small caveat that it hardly comes as a surprise to me. Microgaming is held as the general standard to which other providers should be judged, yet in the space of six months we've had some of the biggest groups - Grand Priv, Jackpot Factory, Bellerock and Trident - pulling stunts ranging from unacceptably irritating to downright diabolical and absolute worthy of casino roguedom. These groups represent a substantial chunk of that particular provider's stable. These are the "best".

I'm curious what casinos you think are reputable.

My list includes 32Red and Intercasino. I'm curious whether you agree with that, and which others belong on the list.

From a player's perspective, the future looks very bleak: most Microgaming casinos can be trusted no more; almost NO Playtechs can be, and the same can be said for RTG. There is a handful of acceptable smaller providers - Net Entertainment, Wagerworks - covering casinos you can practically count on one hand. Of the other big players, Cassava are now tainted with the site-scraping issue and player non-payment "bonus abuse" issues. The casino arm of PartyGaming seems almost the best of the bunch (LOOOOOOL, iGlobalMedia - go figure ) - but are their casinos patronised much? And then, they have several casino software "glitch" issues that they have totally failed to respond to. Why? For the same reason these other groups are now moving over to the dark side - because they can; they consider themselves big enough to weather any storm. And they're right. They pretty much ARE big enough to be able to withstand the occasional forum battering, particularly since many of these now have eCOGRA fighting their corner.

From what I've seen, there are more than a few poker players who are willing to gamble it up at the Party casino - sometimes losing thousands at a time. Given the size of their player base, I'm guessing their casino is very profitable. I don't know how many people play there, though.

To anyone asking my advice about the viability of entering the online gambling scene now, I would advise them to stay far away. Even with the obvious adherent advantages to be had online gambling, the risks are now quite phenomenal.

When you say, "entering the online gambling scene," are you talking about players or operators/affiliates?

What advantages are you talking about?

 

[vinylweatherman]

It'll come back to haunt them!

If they are unable to convince players that all these problems are caused by a justified response to a rogue player, how are regular players to know that they won't become a victim of such issues.

Currently, I have been asked more than once for documents by several reputable (or formerly reputable) casinos. How can I be sure that when I resubmit the same documents as earlier they won't suddenly find some "inconsistency" with them. There seems no way for a player to have a once and for all validation at a given casino, it is always ongoing. So far, I have always been paid in the end, except by one notorious RTG!

I recall a couple of cases where Palace Group gave a player trouble with an "inconsistency", in this case, the rep found that the cause was an error on their part, they had simply mixed his data with that from another player with similar details, and the system flagged possible duplicate account issues.
With BelleRock, could we just have one employee stating to his bosses, "these documents don't look right", and the security juggernaut is set in motion, and nothing will stand in it's way, not even common sense.
While this player has just not been paid, people have spent years of their lives in jail due to blunders, and can not get anyone to listen to their protestations of innocence.

The most recent case of some noteriety in the UK was Prof Meadows and his "personal crusade" on his theories of "shaken baby syndrome". There have been several appeal court aquitals, compensation payments, and a system finally prepard to accept that one man and his theories are NOT irrefutable evidence of a criminal act having taken place. After this, we had "experts" in Scotland making wrong determinations based on fingerprint analysis, and were accused of trying to cover up rather than seeing justice done to those affected (the truth is still not out on this one!).

I am quite capable, therefore, of believing that even a big company will attempt to whitewash over a mistake to save it's image rather than admit to a monumental blunder having taken place.

Now, when I am asked for documents I am going to think "Oh S***, am I going to have trouble here", rather than "Oh well, a necessary formality, better get it over with, and all should be OK".

 

[caruso]

I'm curious what casinos you think are reputable. My list includes 32Red and Intercasino. I'm curious whether you agree with that, and which others belong on the list.

Actually, yeah: Intercasino. iNetBet (next to Intercasino at the top). I'm not a fan of 32Red for reasons I've gone into often. All Net Entertainment casinos (NEVER a complaint in their entire history), I think all WagerWorks casinos are fine. Playtech has a small reputable handful, but none I would be comfortable recommending after the "reputable" Acropolis started pulling stunts a while back.

Not much of a list. Intercasino and iNetBet, both almost 100% clean, and with good games and good comp programmes.

When you say, "entering the online gambling scene," are you talking about players or operators/affiliates?

Players. For operators and affiliates, it's going to be Cash City Central.

What advantages are you talking about?

Just bog-standard online casino advantage play. Frankly, it beats the hell out of me why anyone with a head fixed approximately on their shoulders would play for any other reason. Always baffled me. Always will do.

 

[greedygirl]

So you think that while Congress has pending bills to ban online gaming totally that major US corporations are in development? I know something too, that your statement is a little hard to believe. Especially when you hint at secret info that you are privy to. If you knew something then share it.

Marcy--I think you're a bit naive here.

There's a bit of a history lesson here, so sorry if I bore anyone...

Going back to the summer, previous to the Trade Center bombings, Nevada had voted to move forward with online gambling for the land-based properties. Following the vote, things moved to the Nevada legislature to sort out the odds and ends--things were looking quite good. The land-based casinos had their software in the ready and were anxious to get moving.

Then 9/11 happened--everything changed. Due to the overall climate in the US (helped by the ridiculous McCarthy-esque Patriot Act), all movement within the Nevada legislature regarding online gaming was dropped. The Patriot Act all but prevented things from going further.

With that, Hard Rock and MGM decided to take things into their own hands by spending over $10million each to become one of only a handfull of casinos to license through the Island of Man (IOM). The IOM seemed like a great way to go, as they have the stiffest policies for their licensees--everything would have to be aboveboard. Great as this may be, however, there was to be one stipulation--IOM would not permit Hard Rock and MGM to allow US players (even if they had, though, it would never have flown with Nevada Gaming laws for the land-based counterparts). As a result, MGM and Hard Rock never gained solid footing, as they were marketing to countries where their land-based brand names had no brand recognition, whatsoever. With high licensing fees, etc., these casinos never had a chance.

In the case of Harrah's, they recently attempted a fairly goofy stab at opening up a bingo site in the UK. Harrah's is now the largest land-based operator in the world and they have plans to build land-based properties in the UK. In theory the move to test Harrah's in the UK would seem brilliant, due to the UK's move to regulation. Unfortunately, it was not great software, the marketing of the site was not organized and things fell apart quickly.

For the future, don't count MGM and Hard Rock out. Moreover, Harrah's is likely to have the greatest impact of any US land-based operator. Because they have a huge interest in traditional land-based casinos AND Indian gaming (Indian gaming has been using their deep-pockets in an effort to lobby against online gaming), Harrah's is something of the "great white hope" to affect a change on US policy. They're the only Indian gaming-involved entity pushing for online regulation, plus they have their interest in the UK market, which the US will be greatly influenced by.

Beyond all this, you can be certain that just about every major land-based casino in Vegas is poised with software, marketing plans, and big money to be ready for the moment when they can do so in a legal environment.

Sorry if anyone fell asleep while reading this--you probably needed a good nap anyhow. <grin>

 

[Ivy29]

Changes

I started playing in 2001. Not only have I learned a lot, as most of us know it has changed dramatically.

The list of places I will play is down to 3 or 4 now. One of the top places I've played at for the longest finally pissed me off for the last time today and they are deleted from my computer.

If things go sour with the last few I will play at, I might have to get my ass off the chair and drive to the casino boat every now and then in between trips to Vegas and forget online gambling. It's way more fun anyway, not that I don't love the convenience of playing in my pajamas.

 

[Simmo!]

It's way more fun anyway, not that I don't love the convenience of playing in my pajamas.

Do they have a dress code on the casino boat? If not...best of both worlds

 

[Ivy29]

Dress Code?

Simmo!

I've been known to get ice in my PJ's, video poker? Hmmm.....

 

[vtlady]

Intercasino

I am afraid I have to disagree about Intercasino. I know for a fact that they were responsible for helping a woman who was recently widowed and was under several doctor's care for depression and many physical disabilities deplete some of her life savings to the tune of over $40,000 in less then 5 months of playing with them. Also, i know she never did one withdrawal with them. To me a perosn has to be pretty wealthy to do this.

I also know it to be true that she contacted Ryan the casino manager as well as Mr.Rose the top dog of Cryptologic who I believe owns Intercasino and they in so many words told her to bad, were sorry for the lose of your husband but we can't help ya honey. They told her they didn't think her spending was all that excessive because they had checked out her financial information. Well, now how did they do that.

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

 

[Linus]

Vtlady -- if feels strange, but I have to say, if that's the worst thing Intercasino's done... that's this > < close to praise. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any casino anywhere, online or off, that returns someone's money after they lose. I don't care if it's MGM Grand or the Bellagio, that's not how gambling works. What they can do, and should do, is cut her off. But they can't give her her money back.

 

[paul02085]

I am afraid I have to disagree about Intercasino. I know for a fact that they were responsible for helping a woman who was recently widowed and was under several doctor's care for depression and many physical disabilities deplete some of her life savings to the tune of over $40,000 in less then 5 months of playing with them. Also, i know she never did one withdrawal with them. To me a perosn has to be pretty wealthy to do this.

I also know it to be true that she contacted Ryan the casino manager as well as Mr.Rose the top dog of Cryptologic who I believe owns Intercasino and they in so many words told her to bad, were sorry for the lose of your husband but we can't help ya honey. They told her they didn't think her spending was all that excessive because they had checked out her financial information. Well, now how did they do that.

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

May i ask how were Intercasino responsible? Did they use some underhanded marketing scheme to get her to play there? NO.

I assume after she lost she asked them to give back her money and they wouldnt do it? If so how does that make them bad?

Intercasino does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with the likes of what Jackpot Factory has allowed to happen. Simply is not fair.

 

[caruso]

I definately feel that Intercasino is no better then the JackPot Factory Group.

Give me a break.

You're saying that Intercasino, in accepting a woman's deposits, a woman who HAPPENED to be bereaved, a fact which Intercasino could have no way of knowing (though knowing it would change nothing, anyway), are guilty of the same level of dirty dealing as Jackpot Factory, who have specifically TARGETTED the bereaved in their marketing campaigns???

Intercasino are guilty of not giving a player her money back?? Is this the accusation? She phoned them up to say "I just lost 40K, but I also just lost my husband so give it back"?

 

[Simmo!]

I was thinking about this thread last night. I don't actually think the industry is in such a bad way to be honest. I think it's because we spend part of each day deeply involved in the "complaints" section of Casinomeister, and it inevitably brings the problems to the fore that perhaps gives that perception. Coupled with which, I think a number of people immediately jump to a conclusion and "assume the worst". Inevitable that it gets people thinking about what's going on.

If you look at it, we've had 4 what I term "major" topics recently. Going through the complaints section, most of the others are related to bonus issues. Take bonuses out of the equation and that's 90% of the issues gone in one hit. Although as I previously stated that doesn't mean they aren't "issues" and casinos that rely on them are inviting trouble.

Examine the causes of main issues we've faced more closely:

Bella Vegas - An underage player illegally signed up
English Harbour - May or may not have been cheating or poor code control
King Neptunes - A player didn't play within the terms at the casino
Jackpot Factory - Someone somewhere did some very distatsteful marketing

Some people have taken the stance in a very vocal fashion that Bella Vegas were to blame for allowing the underage player to play, that King Neptunes should have paid the winnings to the player who didn't know the terms, that English Harbour were "deliberately" cheating and that Jackpot Factory management planned and orchestrated the marketing campaign. This was all very vocally questioned, and nothing wrong with that when done in a constructive manner.

Maybe thay're right in every single instance.

But two of those are "assumptions" and two of those are problems that at worst, could have been handled better by the casinos, but were problems caused by players not understanding the rules. The Bella case should have a good outcome in that rules and regulations will hopefully be tightened up within the software. The JF case will hopefully also show others that this type of marketing will not be tolerated.

This thread is here because there has been a lot of vocal players involved in the issues, and that's no bad thing at all. But I also think it has dominated the scene over the past couple of months to the extent where we are in danger of not seeing the wood through the trees.

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp". Makes for good entertainment but it does get the blood sugar up at times. Oh and while each camp can wind up the other at times, it's essential to have that mix to have balanced debates. It does inevitably mean that the conflicting "assumptions" are what the debates are based on.

But this doesn't mean that the industry is in a bad way. It means, if all our worst-case assumptions are true, then the industry is in a bad way.

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

 

[vinylweatherman]

Assumptions

Many will "assume the worst", but this is how we have been brought up in the world of the internet.

With the KN case, the debate revolved about the term "may" in the confiscation clause. We are to believe that where such terms are present, we as players should always assume the worst, and the KN case proved this, that "may", actually meant "will almost certainly".
In the BelleRock case, they believed that the documents "may" have been tampered with, did they give the player a chance to explain? NO, they would not say what the problem was, and neither would eCogra. They could have had reason to conclude the documents were not OK, but they assumed the player was acting in bad faith - they thought the worst. It may turn out that a totally innocent explanation will turn up as to why the documents did not look right, may even be a mix up at BelleRock with the details of two similar players erroneously merged into one file (it's happened before in big business).
If a player has a good run off a bonus, they are "advantage players", or they may be "working in a team". Casinos give no option for the player to didcuss this, it's a case of deposit returned (mostly!), and locked accounts.

If casinos worry that players are too quick to brand the industry as "rip off merchants", they should look at their own behaviour towards some of their players. Casinos only get hit by the "whores" because they have not properly analysed the potential of their promotions from the perspective of a skilled player (sometimes known as an advantage player). Many people bet on horse races, many will spend hours studying form, the track, going etc before placing their bet, this is surely "advantage betting". Are they to be denied payment because they didn't just stick a pin inthe page and bet on the horse it selected!
Casinos must remember, the best of the "bonus whores" are NOT individual players who just happen upon a promotion, they are organised groups, just like here at casinomeister, and if one sees a promotion, they post it, others get the calculators out, and before the day is out someone has posted a suggested "whoring" strategy, along the lines of "get it while you can". Any sign-up offer with +EV will be hit, so they need to design them to be attractive to new players (big absolute numbers), but terms that are both simple, and that cannot be subject to +EV methods - save those types of offers for the loyal players. There ARE other methods of bonusing players apart from the match deposit method - only a few casinos have tried these, and this can make them stand out in a crowd when they use the more popular software clients.

 

[Vesuvio]

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

The moment the reputable end of the casino industry starts applying the "we can do whatever we like" clause (or not even bothering to apply any clause at all!) and denying payouts I think this industry has fallen apart. Judging from Bellerock, Casino on Net and others we seem to be at that point. It's all very well to say it only applies to bonus hunters, but 1) we pretty much all play with bonuses and it's getting to the stage winning on any offer makes the casinos label you a bonus hunter, & 2) casinos that realise they can get away with cheating bonus hunters are going to apply the same methods in dealing with any large payouts to "recreational" players. It's a slippery slope - the very fact that the casinos have managed to introduce the nonsensical term "bonus abusers" for people who take them up on their offers and try to win is a case in point.

Personally the only good I can see coming from this recent trend is that people will think twice about playing at ruthless businesses that will do almost anything to take your money. The last few weeks have given a much more accurate picture of the industry than the months when topics like "Winner Screenshots" and "Which Slot's Hot" have dominated.

 

[phynqster]

The biggest problem I see with all of this is that if the more tnformed players walk away from the casinos, that leaves the degenerate gamblers and newbies for the casinos. So casinos profits start going up and up untill they run out of new players. It is almost like a multi level marketing scam, with the casinos getting in on the bottom floor. I don't think regulation is the ultimate answer, I think that casinos HAVE to become publically held entities, where they must listen topublic opinion.

 

[jetset]

I was thinking about this thread last night. I don't actually think the industry is in such a bad way to be honest. I think it's because we spend part of each day deeply involved in the "complaints" section of Casinomeister, and it inevitably brings the problems to the fore that perhaps gives that perception. Coupled with which, I think a number of people immediately jump to a conclusion and "assume the worst". Inevitable that it gets people thinking about what's going on.

If you look at it, we've had 4 what I term "major" topics recently. Going through the complaints section, most of the others are related to bonus issues. Take bonuses out of the equation and that's 90% of the issues gone in one hit. Although as I previously stated that doesn't mean they aren't "issues" and casinos that rely on them are inviting trouble.

Examine the causes of main issues we've faced more closely:

Bella Vegas - An underage player illegally signed up
English Harbour - May or may not have been cheating or poor code control
King Neptunes - A player didn't play within the terms at the casino
Jackpot Factory - Someone somewhere did some very distatsteful marketing

Some people have taken the stance in a very vocal fashion that Bella Vegas were to blame for allowing the underage player to play, that King Neptunes should have paid the winnings to the player who didn't know the terms, that English Harbour were "deliberately" cheating and that Jackpot Factory management planned and orchestrated the marketing campaign. This was all very vocally questioned, and nothing wrong with that when done in a constructive manner.

Maybe thay're right in every single instance.

But two of those are "assumptions" and two of those are problems that at worst, could have been handled better by the casinos, but were problems caused by players not understanding the rules. The Bella case should have a good outcome in that rules and regulations will hopefully be tightened up within the software. The JF case will hopefully also show others that this type of marketing will not be tolerated.

This thread is here because there has been a lot of vocal players involved in the issues, and that's no bad thing at all. But I also think it has dominated the scene over the past couple of months to the extent where we are in danger of not seeing the wood through the trees.

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp". Makes for good entertainment but it does get the blood sugar up at times. Oh and while each camp can wind up the other at times, it's essential to have that mix to have balanced debates. It does inevitably mean that the conflicting "assumptions" are what the debates are based on.

But this doesn't mean that the industry is in a bad way. It means, if all our worst-case assumptions are true, then the industry is in a bad way.

Some bad apples in casino-land? Yup...always have been, always will be. Keeps us on our toes but doesn't mean the industry is falling apart.

An excellent post, Simmo and one in which I share your viewpoint.

Casinomeister has always been about balance and some respect for the views of others, no matter how different from our own, and once we lose that open-mindedness we will lose the attention and respect that both sides of the fence have for this site and what it can and does achieve. In fact a large part of it's ability to achieve results where many others fail is that balance.

There will always be contentious posts from one or more of the three factions Simmo identifies, together with some that are downright insulting, abusive or personal. Whilst these may frustrate and anger members of the other factions, that's part of the way issues are handled here providing there is an element of self-control.

I believe Simmo's post is worthwhile reading to keep a sense of overall perspective, and that good revisions of policies and conduct can result from reasoned exchanges and constructive input from members of a forum such as this.

 

[Vesuvio]

We clearly have three camps at Casinomeister, as even this thread shows. There's the "innocent til proven guilty" camp, the "no judgement 'til we get all the facts" camp and the "guilty 'til proven innocent camp".

I didn't notice that comment before, but it doesn't ring true. On most issues we quickly have a good idea what's going on and posters make up their mind more or less immediately before trying to persuade others of their view. The EH debacle was different as, apart from the fact that EH dealt a biased game and lied about it when first challenged, we were drip-fed limited facts and had to make an interpretation. I don't see "guilty 'til proven innocent" or similar categories as relevant. Simply on the basis of what we know some concluded the evidence against the casino is overwhelming. For others it's possible/probable they cheated. Some are convinced of their innocence. These aren't camps that would necessarily take up the same positions on other issues.

If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.

The problem at the moment is that it looks like the debate on here might be becoming an irrelevance, in which case there'll be no regulation left and casinos will be able to do whatever they like.

 

[Mousey]

I have determined (I looked at my totals last night) that with what I've deposited at online casinos just this year, had I taken that money to my fav B&M casino, I would have free suites, free food and free booze and various other bling-bling for many, many 4 night visits. (And that's not even looking at playthrough, which land based casinos take into consideration.)

What does this have to do with this thread? I think the biggest problem in online gaming is that the majority of casinos don't reward their regular, loyal, players. They worry about getting new players, not keeping the players they have. They just don't give a flying rat's butt whether a loyal low to medium roller continues to deposit or not.

"Awww, did we piss off a long time regular? Too bad. S/he only deposits $500 a week -- and s/he is $100 ahead for this month. Cut him off from all comps and bonuses. We'll get 2 new players in his place!"

 

[dominique]

If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.

It is not divided as Vesuvio says at all. There are a lot of players here who are not affiliates at all and who always wait until they have all the info before they judge.

There are a lot of players here who are also affiliates and who judge categorically without facts.

What I am trying to say is that, affiliate or player or both, it doesn't matter, people are still well distributed across Simmos categories.

Affiliates who categorically look at things in the casinos favor are never around for long, because casinos that cheat are cheaters. They cheat players, affiliates and their cleaning ladies alike.

Players who categorically blame the casino annoy me too, because they deflect from where the true problems are. While all the commotion is going on about casino A, casino B is getting away with murder.

Overall though, I think there is a very good balance here and while I don't always participate vocally, this board allows me to make smarter decisions as to who I would want to do business with and who I don't.

Members here are really super at getting to the bottom of things. I think probably the dynamics between the different types of personalities are exactly what causes the facts to be found.

That's why I like to come here, to find out things I couldn't have by myself. I come here to learn more.The membership here rocks!

 

[jetset]

QUOTE: If there are camps then of course they're: 1) casino owners/employees, 2) affiliates and 3) players. The groups have entirely different outlooks on the industry (though 1 & 2 have more in common and 3 can be split into bonus and recreational players), so of course there's going to be lively debate.UNQUOTE

I don't agree with the above comment, and it bugs me when it is used to try and deepen the divide between the various groups of posters here.

I would hope that the implication is not that only players' views and opinions are valid, because the interaction of Simmo's three factions here is a productive one which makes this a top site that we all visit regularly.

Many affiliates, webmasters and other interested parties are also players and/or are angry at seeing injustice but manage to retain a balanced perspective on issues, and in fact are more likely to be those assisting players than anyone else.

I believe, and it is frequently manifest here that most posters who are exclusively players have a fair approach to issues and are not as easily swayed as may be thought - in other words they consider the facts and form their own opinion as thinking adults.

Many of the webmasters and affiliates etc here have gone after defaulting casinos with energy and determination on player issues, and have suffered financial loss in doing so. To lump them all together with any suggestion that they are prone to favour casinos over players on issues where an opposing opinion is given is not only mistaken, it is unfair.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency by the "negative assumptions" prone to regard anything short of agreement with their often speculative views as casino-supportive: it's not - it's exercising a preference for seeking a balanced view based on fact.

 

[Simmo!]

These aren't camps that would necessarily take up the same positions on other issues.

I take your point on that V, and a lot of people certainly switch between the "camps". I do that from time to time myself. But in essence the three camps do exist with a hardcore of members and others drifting in and out.

Regards the casinos/affiliates/players camps you suggest, a similar principle applies. Affiliates like Casinomeister, Webzcas, Caruso and Dominique are probably good examples of those who, while with different outlooks and ways of attacking things, have all supported both sides at one time or another. So again you are likely to find a hardcore in each category and a number "floating".

 

[Vesuvio]

It is not divided as Vesuvio says at all. There are a lot of players here who are not affiliates at all and who always wait until they have all the info before they judge.

Except with an issue like EH we're never going to have all the info. Note also that I said nothing about whether players/casinos or affiliates wait for info or not. That's superimposing Simmo's classification.

I would hope that the implication is not that only players' views and opinions are valid, because the interaction of Simmo's three factions here is a productive one which makes this a top site that we all visit regularly.

No, I'm not saying that, just that in general the outlook on most issues is obviously going to be very different.

Anyway, of course I know the casinos/affiliates/players split is a gross generalisation. I'd just say it's a much more applicable and less divisive gross generalisation than - "innocent before proven guilty", "wait for the facts", "guilty before proven innocent" which does assume that some groups are more or less impartial than others.

 

[dominique]

Except with an issue like EH we're never going to have all the info. Note also that I said nothing about whether players/casinos or affiliates wait for info or not. That's superimposing Simmo's classification.No, I'm not saying that, just that in general the outlook on most issues is obviously going to be very different.

Anyway, of course I know the casinos/affiliates/players split is a gross generalisation. I'd just say it's a much more applicable and less divisive gross generalisation than - "innocent before proven guilty", "wait for the facts", "guilty before proven innocent" which does assume that some groups are more or less impartial than others.

I was trying to say that I don't really think there is such a split, I see people from each the player and aff commuities taking stances on either side of issues as we go.

I usually tend to want to see proof, because I don't like to destroy anyone's livelihood without positive proof, be that a casino or a mom and pop store.

Be that as it may, for instance in the EH issue you bring up, my reaction to the situation was to not promote any oddson software until they somehow regained my trust, but also I did not blacklist them since there is a lack of evidence.

While I don't always agree with all the views expressed here, since I have a portal I feel obliged to make decisions on how to react, and those are guided by my ability to protect my customers. I can't just say what I think here and be done with it, I have to actually go and do something about it.

So, obviously I have to take other factors into account. Such as, since I have no contacts and no influence with EH, I cannot list them as long as I have any doubt about their software. In another situation I may list a casino you don't trust, but where I know I have enough influence to make things right should something go wrong. If a place I have no influence with even just looks like they might be rogue I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.

So, yes, there is a somewhat different perspective, but it varies from case to case. I could easily end up on either side of the fence.

That said, I am just speaking for myself and not affs in general, because there are as many attitides and opinons as there are people.

 

[GrandMaster]

Some affiliates seem to live in a different world. I read the thread about JF at CAP, and one guy was so impressed by JF's handling of this issue that he wanted to sign up as an affiliate.