1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice

Poll:Best Screenshot of the Month?



Candidates Revealed...Cast your vote!.
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Why are the Rival white label casinos in the Not Recommended section...

Discussion in 'Forum Suggestions, Announcements, & Feedback' started by Casinomeister, Jul 2, 2010.

    Jul 2, 2010
  1. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    ...and Lock Casino is not?

    Recently, my announcement of Rival Casinos (white labels) being placed in the Not Recommended section of the rogue pit has drawn criticism from the affiliate community. I've been accused of having double standards when it comes to determining what casino property deserves to be placed in that section. Let me explain a little bit on how the determination is made.

    Lock Casino - as you can read in this thread - had a crisis with a payment processor that vanished with their funds. As they have explained several times, this is being addressed and they are slowly but surely paying their players as reported here and here. During this period, they have been removed from the accredited list where they remain in limbo until this situation is eradicated. Lest we forget, this casino is in full operation with dedicated staff doing whatever they can to get back to normal.

    All casinos that are US facing have these risks. And if I remember correctly, I have stated numerous times in the past that US based players ought to find something else to do until the US gets its act together. US players may experience slow payouts from time to time - this should be expected. As a US based player, these are the risks you take.

    Is this (Lock Casino issue) fodder for the NR list? No. Is it a reason to be removed from the "Accredited Section"? Unfortunately, yes.

    Rival Casino white labels: Rival has at least 35 Rival powered casinos. All but four of these casinos are white labels (Slot 'o Cash, Box24, BetUS, and Black Diamond Casino are not white labels and should not be included with the rest). With white labels, the software provider provides the software, the ecash processing, and the player support. The casino owner/operator provides the funding and the marketing. So in other words, if you have the funds and the marketing know-how to promote a casino, you're in business. Unfortunately it takes more than knowing how to market a casino to run a casino - but that's another story. The problem with Rival is that the white label operators are operating in the red, and they're dropping like flies as discussed here.

    iGaming Pro, First Gaming Partner, 23 Partners, and Royal Apollo affiliate programs have all gone out of business, and I am predicting that there are more closures on the horizon. Let's see what happens in the next week or two.

    These closures are not stemming from operator level issues; they are generated by the way Rival is set up. There is a domino effect and we haven't seen or heard the last of it.

    Is this criteria for the not recommended list? Yes, I feel that players and affiliates should avoid these casinos - and they are listed here.

    So comparing the recent Lock Casino issue with what is happening at Rival is like comparing apples with suitcases: you can carry them in one hand, and that is about how far it goes.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2010
    7 people like this.
  2. Jul 2, 2010
  3. Pinababy69

    Pinababy69 RIP Lisa

    Occupation:
    Crusader
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada
    Completely agree on the Rival scenario Bryan. You know how I feel about the white label "house of cards" business model to begin with. This was only a matter of time IMO.

    In regards to Lock, I agree they don't belong on the rogue, or not recommended list...far from it. However, when a casino is having cashflow issues (for whatever reason), or processor problems...whether it's their own fault or not, I am of the opinion that there should be a warning given to players. Just a heads up saying "hey, these guys are having a few problems right now when it comes to paying people in a timely manner. But...it's being worked on, and should be resolved soon." Again, that's just an opinion.

    I also agree that we are going to see more of this coming from casinos who do continue to accept US players. Any company not well funded, could find themselves in a very bad situation, should this same scenario come up again. And the ones who will feel the brunt of it, will be players and affiliates.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Jul 2, 2010
  5. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    I thought I did. Too busy for my own good:
    http://www.casinomeister.com/forums...gs/38811-lock-casino-experiencing-delays.html
     
  6. Jul 2, 2010
  7. Pinababy69

    Pinababy69 RIP Lisa

    Occupation:
    Crusader
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada
  8. Jul 2, 2010
  9. NASHVEGAS

    NASHVEGAS Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,

    Occupation:
    LOL
    Location:
    MERS
    A fair statement as Rival's WL's trip to the PIT is long overdue and should not be limited to the current situation(s) at present as the sole cause of Rival's trip to the PIT.

    No need to rehash all but the TIV thread, the Irish Luck progressive thread, the T2 lawsuit discussions and news, the Rival pulls out of Canada thread, the Initial Accreditation thread to the recent Tradition thread plus many more Rival related threads over the last two years plus have now been properly addressed by Bryan.:thumbsup:........of course, just my transparent consistent opinion pursuant to the above!
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2010
    1 person likes this.
  10. Jul 6, 2010
  11. 21grandcasino

    21grandcasino Dormant account

    Occupation:
    casino manager
    Location:
    earth
    With white labels, the software provider provides the software, the ecash processing, and the player support. The casino owner/operator provides the funding and the marketing

    What about the casinos that have there own customer support and use rival at the moment for the processing.. where do they full???
     
  12. Jul 7, 2010
  13. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    removal from NR section

    I've been in touch with Rival's CEO and he has provided me some information that I believe is reassuring to both players and webmasters:

    He has assured me that item #1 will be adhered to, and in my opinion that's the crux of the matter = taking care of players and affiliates.

    Placing casinos - especially a group of them into the "not recommended" section is not my way of trying to harm someone's business, or to punish a casino; it is a listing so that consumers (read: players and affiliates) are aware of circumstances that may adversely affect them. My primary concern is that the casinos remain solvent and are able to keep up their end of the bargain - here we have the software provider confirming they will step in if a casino is going tits up.

    So to be fair - especially to those casinos which still seem to have their ducks in order, I'm taking them out of the not-recommended section.
     
    4 people like this.
  14. Jul 7, 2010
  15. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
  16. Jul 7, 2010
  17. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    Interesting - the way I interpret what the Rival man has to say is that the company will stand behind players to prevent them losing out in the event that a licensee busts out....reminiscent of Microgaming's stance (OK, OK, Spiderlegz, I'll qualify that to 'pre-Tusk' et al;)

    Taken at face value that is encouraging news in a sea of negative recent happenings at Rival as outlined in Nash's post.

    We'll be holding Rival to that.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Jul 7, 2010
  19. NASHVEGAS

    NASHVEGAS Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,

    Occupation:
    LOL
    Location:
    MERS
    You must register/login in order to see the link. I am a newbie and they owe me $666.66,where are they?..........well google did not help.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2010
  20. Jul 7, 2010
  21. Casinomeister

    Casinomeister Forum Cheermeister Staff Member

    Occupation:
    Homemaker
    Location:
    Bierland
    PAB it and let's see what happens.
     
  22. Jul 7, 2010
  23. NASHVEGAS

    NASHVEGAS Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,

    Occupation:
    LOL
    Location:
    MERS
    If you promise to put one of those PAB thingys on my page in orange and blue.:D
     
    1 person likes this.
  24. Jul 7, 2010
  25. Tengil

    Tengil Senior Member

    Occupation:
    -
    Location:
    Finland
    But they only mentioned the WLs. So with the independent ones they wouldnt probably do a thing other than yank the software license.
    And the amounts are most likely very small, in the TUSK case the casinos had total liabilities of 265,200 (players 194,200 and affs 71,000).
    Tropica in 2001 and Goodfellas in 2002 werent probably any big cases either, mostly speculating as those happened before I started to play online. And these were not any white label Rivals, in TUSK it was 6 casinos with quite good reputation.

    Seriously thats not a lot of money by any standard and the goodwill you get (like what MG got 2001 and 2002) will earn it back multiple times. So its not like they do it just out of kindness.

    A bit OT ramble as these issues should be dealt by the licensing jurisdictions IMO but couldnt resist Jetsets "invite";)
     

Share This Page