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

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
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:

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
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.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
...

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 thought I did. Too busy for my own good:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/lock-casino-experiencing-delays-slo-pay-no-pay.38811/
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada

NASHVEGAS

Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Location
MERS
what is happening at Rival is like comparing apples with suitcases
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:

21grandcasino

Dormant account
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
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???
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
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:

1. Please note that all customers and affiliates linked to the properties discussed herein will continue to be paid as usual regardless of the state of said property.

2. Note that the White Label is 100% responsible for the marketing of their own property. Erred promotional design and configuration may lead to high withdrawal rates. If said promotions are not corrected by the WL and arrears are not caught up within the given time-frame, the property becomes insolvent.

3. Rival then takes on the responsibility to continue processing payments for the property's customers and affiliates.

4. Issues of CS quality are documented and known. Action has been taken to develop a CS team with North American quality communication skills to provide higher quality services to WL customers within 90 days.

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.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 1998
Location
Bierland
The NR listing has been updated and moved to the Past Issues section:
Old URL
 

jetset

RIP Brian
Joined
Feb 22, 2001
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.
 

Tengil

Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2006
Location
Finland
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.

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";)
 
Top