Casino Talks

Posted by: The Original Mary at April 10, 2001, 9:33 am

Topic: The OPA White Wash Service Forum: Winner Online

This isn't an official OPA position post, this is a Mary Position Post.

These questions have been raised of the OPA:

*Why does the OPA support a boycott of all operators using gamblingsoftware.com software, regardless of the individual casino's payment history?

*Why is the OPA endorsing casinos opened by ex-gamblingsoftware.com licensees whose GSS operated casinos ripped players off in the past?

Some of these decisions were made in response to information that I myself generated, so I feel compelled to defend my work. I first became aware of a problem with gamblingsoftware.com when doing research on another matter entirely. At that time, representations were made to me personally about how gamblingsoftware.com sold and operated its turnkey product that were at odds with reports I was seeing from the players' side. As things developed, I came to these conclusions:

*It was impossible to ascertain without corraboration of a third party that any casino running the gamblingsoftware.com software was not under the complete control of gamblingsoftware.com

*In many cases, they were running the entire operation, and giving preferential treatment to their own operations that had no licensee involvement

*In many cases, they were in control of finances and unconcerned about paying players

*Individuals in charge of gamblingsoftware.com could not be relied upon in any of their statements

*Operators who were concerned about the reputation of gamblingsoftware.com casinos faced a choice of making themselves known to the OPA to protect their reputations or staying out of it all

*The OPA was open to dialoging with all operators interested in doing so

Faced with all these, it is my opinion that a blanket boycott of all gamblingsoftware.com powered casinos was in the best interests of player protection.

Those "honest" operators who have not generated player complaints have also not sought any regulation or third party erification of their operations to the best of my knowledge. I have suggested to some that they do so.

Now, why does the OPA endorse the new casinos opened by ex-licensees? Because they did go to the effort of contacting the OPA; because they did go to the effort and expense of protecting their own players by leaving GSS and taking control of their accounts; because they have "rocked the boat" and provided information that helps other licensees and players.

Has it turned out that some of these operators screwed up anyway and owe players money? (Pinnace) Yep. We're still working on it. *I* am still working on it. If anything, the screwup there was that the OPA boycott was not broad enough--not that it was too broad.

As for the other "whitewashed" operators and their new casinos, if there are any problems with them, the OPA wants to know. *I* want to know. That's the best I can do.

Casino Classic
Get $500 free on the house!

Categories:

free poker casino game casino online casino poker room poker tables internet poker poker sites casino poker full tilt poker texas holdem free slots internet casino online blackjack texas holdem poker online texas holdem baccarat texas holdem tournament online slots gambling

Links:

Movie Talks
Forum Extractor

Casino Classic.
Get $500 free on the house!