Why Doesnt E-Cogra offer player's insurance?

[casinoplayer658]

Talk is cheap. They can say all they want about safety and security. However if a player gets screwed and a site decides not to pay E-Cogra should have to shell out the cash for giving out a false sense of hope.

I mean really what good is a watchdog company if they can't guaranteed you get paid?

 

[Simmo!]

Talk is cheap. They can say all they want about safety and security. However if a player gets screwed and a site decides not to pay E-Cogra should have to shell out the cash for giving out a false sense of hope.

I mean really what good is a watchdog company if they can't guaranteed you get paid?

LOL - this is a joke right?

eCOGRA are a regulatory commission. They provide more research to help the player, but ultimately it is the player's decsion where to play and the player takes the responsibility. What eCOGRA will do is help you when you have a problem, and try to assist you in making the right decision.

Having been in to see how they work recently, they have a very thorough way of dealing with complaints and any of the casinos they seal who act out-of-hand would soon find their seals revoked. Interestingly, most of the issues from what i can gather come from fraudulent players, bonus abusers, or players who played a bonus without understanding the T&C's.

What they do is much needed in my opinion. We've seen this sort of post before from players who took a complaint there and had a ruling go against them (see above). I think most posters here would agree that the casinos on the eCOGRA list are reputable casinos. I dont believe any of them would not pay out unless they had good reason to suspect something wasn't right.

 

[jetset]

From what I have seen to date, players with a legitimate dispute have been paid by seal casinos after the intervention of eCOGRA's Fair Gaming Advocate.
If you have a legit complaint, that would appear to me to be an adequate safeguard.

 

[Casinomeister]

Talk is cheap. They can say all they want about safety and security. However if a player gets screwed and a site decides not to pay E-Cogra should have to shell out the cash for giving out a false sense of hope.

I mean really what good is a watchdog company if they can't guaranteed you get paid?

Like it's already been implied, they don't do this because it's not necessary.

 

[schnozzy]

players who played a bonus without understanding the T&C's.

I saw terms at Millionaire Casino that just astounded me. Let me quote them:

Play at any Blackjack, Progressive Blackjack, Multi Hand Jacks Or Better, Multi Hand Aces And Faces, Craps, Roulette, Baccarat, War, All Star horse Racing, Red Dog, Extreme Lotto and Ultimate Hi-Lo game is restricted until you have met our wagering requirement. If you play on these games before meeting our requirements, then you agree that the casino holds the right to void any winnings made from these games at our discretion. Further, all losses incurred while playing said games will be non-refundable. We are therefore strongly advising you not play any of these games until your wagering requirement is met to avoid potential winnings being voided.

So, you are allowed to play Blackjack... but if you win, they will take your winnings, and if you lose, that's your tough luck. If the casinos are going to have T&Cs like that, they should at least provide a warning dialog in the software, saying "would you prefer to play a different game, or would you like to play playmoney blakjack?"

Letting players play a banned game, and keeping losses/not paying wins is an almost sickeningly unethical way to enforce it.

 

[winbig]

I saw terms at Millionaire Casino that just astounded me. Let me quote them:



So, you are allowed to play Blackjack... but if you win, they will take your winnings, and if you lose, that's your tough luck. If the casinos are going to have T&Cs like that, they should at least provide a warning dialog in the software, saying "would you prefer to play a different game, or would you like to play playmoney blakjack?"

Letting players play a banned game, and keeping losses/not paying wins is an almost sickeningly unethical way to enforce it.

When you download any casino software, no matter what provider, it asks you before installation if you agree with their T&C. If you simply check the box without reading, well, tough luck. Same goes with bonuses. Their T&C are clearly marked (most of the time), and if you don't like the T&C for a bonus, don't take it. Bonuses are a privilege, not a right. I'll never understand the logistics behind the banning of certain games that have a higher house advantage, but still....it's a contract and you have to play by it, or they can do what's outlined in their T&C, like it or not...same goes for them...if you play by the rules and they don't want to pay you, you have every right to get paid.

 

[casinoplayer658]

LOL - this is a joke right?

eCOGRA are a regulatory commission. They provide more research to help the player, but ultimately it is the player's decsion where to play and the player takes the responsibility. What eCOGRA will do is help you when you have a problem, and try to assist you in making the right decision.

Having been in to see how they work recently, they have a very thorough way of dealing with complaints and any of the casinos they seal who act out-of-hand would soon find their seals revoked. Interestingly, most of the issues from what i can gather come from fraudulent players, bonus abusers, or players who played a bonus without understanding the T&C's.

What they do is much needed in my opinion. We've seen this sort of post before from players who took a complaint there and had a ruling go against them (see above). I think most posters here would agree that the casinos on the eCOGRA list are reputable casinos. I dont believe any of them would not pay out unless they had good reason to suspect something wasn't right.

Ok I never filed a complaint with them. Stop assuming. They arent a regulatory agency. They are a buisness that sells logos for other sites to put on their sites.

A regulatory agency would sue the casino on your behalf to ensure you get paid. Just like in Nevada and AC.

 

[Pinababy69]

But Casinoplayer, what about a player who submits a fraudulent claim? Not all claims/grievances filed with ECogra are legitimate. As Simmo stated in an earlier post, a large majority of claims filed relate to bonus abuse, fraudulent play (ie. multiple accounts) and misunderstanding of bonus terms. Why in the world would an organization such as ECogra be responsible for providing insurance to players such as these? And can you imagine if reputable casinos were being sued every other day by fraudulent players? Microgaming casinos are one of the last few online casinos where you can almost guarantee you will be paid, if you played by all the rules. And from what I have read, I do believe that any and all legitimate complaints which have been filed with ECogra have been settled to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[casinoplayer658]

But Casinoplayer, what about a player who submits a fraudulent claim? Not all claims/grievances filed with ECogra are legitimate. As Simmo stated in an earlier post, a large majority of claims filed relate to bonus abuse, fraudulent play (ie. multiple accounts) and misunderstanding of bonus terms. Why in the world would an organization such as ECogra be responsible for providing insurance to players such as these? And can you imagine if reputable casinos were being sued every other day by fraudulent players? Microgaming casinos are one of the last few online casinos where you can almost guarantee you will be paid, if you played by all the rules. And from what I have read, I do believe that any and all legitimate complaints which have been filed with ECogra have been settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Just like insurance in the real world you would have to provide proof and an investigation would be conducted.

 

[schnozzy]

When you download any casino software, no matter what provider, it asks you before installation if you agree with their T&C. If you simply check the box without reading, well, tough luck.

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that it would be way more player-friendly to make their software pop up a warning if you're about to do something that lets them void your winnings.

As it stands, I'm afraid to get near online craps and roulette, even when I know I'm way past the wagering requirements.

 

[KasinoKing]

I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that it would be way more player-friendly to make their software pop up a warning if you're about to do something that lets them void your winnings.

As it stands, I'm afraid to get near online craps and roulette, even when I know I'm way past the wagering requirements.

That would be very nice - if they gave you a warning. But realistically I can't see that happening at any online casino.
We'll just have to keep reading those tedious T&C's.

I found a really weird Condition at a Playtech - keep an eye out for my new thread later...
(Today, if I get time!)

 

[Petunia]

* Hey there. IS this about the group being fair, or is this about the group refusing to sue the casinos, but rather work with them in a quiet and agreeable manner?
As far as I know, eCogra will investigate ANY claims, they just dont run off to the court on behalve of the players. That would both be a waste of money, time and effort, especially in the case of bogus claims.

As far as I know, eCogra will also make sure that the players are not wronged by a casino carrying their seal - in the event that the player has a claim that is legit. Should the casino not comply, they are in breach of contract, and not only face their seal being revoked, but also hefty fines on certain issues.
So, WHY should eCogra pay for the indescretion of their seal bearers, they have their contracts, and procedures in place to deal with this.

NOW, tell me, what happens to the bogus claims against the casino, should those pple be made to pay eCogra then? **

 

[Casinomeister]

...NOW, tell me, what happens to the bogus claims against the casino, should those pple be made to pay eCogra then? **

Sure. Bogus claims are an incredible waste of time that leeches the attention taken away from the legitimate ones. At least eCOGRA deals only with their casino members, and it's easier to manage and investigate.

Over here in Casinomeisterland, I'll take on anyone - but when a player submits a bogus complaint (bogus meaning player fraud), then they are liable for a Euro 500 fee. They still do it though

Back to the insurance thing, it would really be unnecessary. And to state that they are just a business that is simply selling logos displays a lack of understanding about this industry and what eCOGRA is all about.

 

[JohnGalt]

a large majority of claims filed relate to bonus abuse, ...Why in the world would an organization such as ECogra be responsible for providing insurance to players such as these?

What does this mean? What is bonus abuse? You distinguish it from fraudulent activity, so what is it? Anyone that takes advantage of a promotion is SOL?

 

[Simmo!]

What does this mean? What is bonus abuse? You distinguish it from fraudulent activity, so what is it? Anyone that takes advantage of a promotion is SOL?

Typically "bonus abuse" covers things like signing up more than once, using mulitple IP addresses or banned IPs to get extra bonuses not due, getting "friends" to sign up... etc etc. It doesnt cover legitimate misunderstandings relating to bonus terms or players using a bonus to try and win fairly.

 

[Pinababy69]

Thank you Simmo, that's precisely what I meant by bonus abuse. I certainly didn't mean to use the term in the same manner that some of the shadier casinos seem to be doing these days, as a catch-all phrase to get out of paying legitimate wins.

 

[webber286]

eCOGRA is in the business of certifying online casinos and regulating them as far as they are able too, not to provide insurance policies. To ask eCOGRA to provide insurance to players certainly opens up a can of worms for them. I could see many players with fraudulent claims taking up their time in the chance that they could make some money.

Since you are asking for insurance Casinoplayer, I'm interested in how much you would spend on an eCOGRA policy? Since no insurance is free, what would it be worth for a player to know they are protected from any wrong doing on the part of the casinos eCOGRA represents?

 

[amandajm]

MD : Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that the player community does not accept those "internationally respected professional organizations" without question. Since there is no reason to believe that those organizations are going to open their test data and/or processes to public or third-party scrutiny it would seem that the requests from the player community for same will go unanswered. Any comments on this?

AB: PwC has done a remarkable job of getting all the major software suppliers (CryptoLogic, Random Logic, Microgaming and Boss Media) involved in the TGTR process, and I can understand why they wouldn't want to make public their proprietary information and technology which competitors could potentially exploit to take away market share.

I think the players should respect this, and appreciate that this process is now tried and tested by PwC and these software providers over the last five years.

Who runs the audits for Ecogra now?
If it is still PWC, why did ecogra systematically try to remove all mention of PWC from the site and why weren't the public informed of such.
If it is not PWC, why were'nt the public informed?

I am not getting into this Ecogra thing in depth again because it has become farcicle, so no worries for you Ecogra supporters.

Just a simple factual answer will do to an obviously important question, that should not be left for an idiot like me to ask.

 

[casinoplayer658]

You are all missing the point.

If E-Cogra is as thourough as they claim to be in approving casinos, offering insurance should not be a problem. They will never have to pay a claim if their standards are up to snuff, correct?

As for paying for the insurance.. You are already paying when you make a deposit.

 

[tombomb]

AHAA!

why doesnt somebody open an online casino insurance company?Some clever lawyer could do it. Sell you a policy.You know, if we win I get 30%,if we lose I get 30%. Make terms and conditions a requisite for buying a policy.

 

[webber286]

As for paying for the insurance.. You are already paying when you make a deposit.

You are paying the casino, not eCOGRA. The casinos do pay eCOGRA for the audit, but not for insuring player claims. If there really is a market for online casino insurance, I'm sure someone would be doing it.

 

[Casinomeister]

...If there really is a market for online casino insurance, I'm sure someone would be doing it.

Exactly. And that's why no one is doing it. This industry is just about ten years old, and I'm sure within the past ten years it's been kicked around by enough people who have tried to make something like this work. Apparently, there's not a market for it - it's too problematic.

 

[Petunia]

** Think about it realistically - IF the USA has a legislation against gambling online, then how on earth will any company sellig insurance, make sure that in the event of such claims landing up in court, are FAIR?
1) The court will rule against the casino, PERIOD.
2) THe client will be exposed for 'breaking the law'
3) The company filing the case would have to admid to 'aiding and abiding'.

Those are just three, that I can think of in my tiny little brain. **

 

[amandajm]

As I thought, the whole point of my questions are missed.

Just a simple factual answer will do to an obviously important question, that should not be left for an idiot like me to ask.

I can't expect to see the source code of the casino software. I don't really want to see reams of data regarding every bet placed, every result passed through the RNG. I would'nt understand it.

The bottom line is with this whole ecogra thing is simply "trust".

# The more they dodge very very important player sensitive issues such as spyware with mere silence.
# The more they offer up badly worded press releases purporting to be "online gaming's regulatory body".
# The more they allow firms like Fortune to not stomp on spam by shutting down deals with the likes of Slickstreet, but stay sealed.
# The more they say nothing when affiliate webmasters have to put up with seriously questionable behaviour, without a word, in fact a wave of the hand to the likes of Spear. Such questionable behaviour in fact, the firms backed down.
# The more they refuse to answer simple questions to one, that they answer to another.
# The more they ask for trust on the back of PWC's good name, but then try to silently remove all mention of said firm from the site.

All means the less trust they gain. What do you supporters really expect one to think? Trust is earned - Ecogra even needed telling that "bonus abuse" by players who abide by "the letter of the promotion" should be paid what they are rightfully owed.

Then you get to wondering whether they are telling the truth about the number crunching process, that we just have to trust their word on.

No need for a reply because there is nothing to say - the above #'s happened and some are still so.
Carry on.

 

[caruso]

Something is unexplained here: it isn't just Ecogra who've pulled all reference to PriceWaterhouseCooper - it's EVERY online gambling site out there. They all now say "independent auditors" in place of "PWC".

Clearly, PWC have required that their name be pulled from all gambling sites.

Why is this? Why the secrecy?

I've little doubt PWC haven't ended their relationship with online gambling - I see payout reports as recent as September with their stamp on it (these haven't been pulled). So why have PWC gone undercover - or HAVE they in fact now pulled their relationship with the industry?

This has done Ecogra no favours: the lack of transparency made the whole TGTR claim a non-issue for me from the offset, but to have now lost the right to at least say WHO is doing the "secret software verification" makes a mockery of it - and THIS much is not even Ecogra's fault.

Why have PriceWaterhouseCooper gone "underground"? Why secrecy where there was transparency?