ICE 2007: a brief visit

I spent the latter part of yesterday, 24th January 2007, at the International Casino Exhibition at Earl's Court in London, the annual and premier occasion in the UK for gambling operations of all shapes and sizes to advertise their wares.

I met with one of the senior managers from Microgaming, for the purpose of discussing the possibility of reopening an apparently closed case of player unrightfully withheld winnings, and also to bring to Microgaming's attention an error in the various graphic displays I had discovered in one of the blackjack games, which advertises a game with rather better rules than the one actually delivered. Both these matters have been discussed publically, in the Jackpots In A Flash and Microgaming autoplay error threads at Winneroline.

Aside from the serious issues at hand, we chatted about the current regulatory environment in which, after the passage of the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, increasing numbers of offshore operators are seeking the protection and legitimacy of the regulatory bodies under British jurisdiction - Alderney, The Isle Of Man and Gibraltor - and the various non-governmental bodies such as the Kahnawake Commission and eCOGRA. We found agreement that perception is everything in a business with such a colourful reputation as online gambling, and that operator malpractice is extremely counter-productive to the maintenance and gaining of consumer confidence. Operators guilty of misconduct: take note.

It was a useful get-together with a very pleasant and cooperative Microgaming representative. The software graphic problem will most certainly be addressed, and I'm optimistic that the player issue will receive a fair appraisal.

Real Time Gaming were sadly missed - see previous article, RTG cancels ICE attendance. To make up for their absence, however, there was a surprise addition that wasn't on the original exhibitors' list - Mohawk Internet Technologies. The Canadian Mohawk Indians have many online casino servers located within their territorial boundaries, and these operations are "regulated" by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. The Commission has been to date a notoriously ineffectual regulatory body - see my article on the most recent Golden Palace / Kahnawake disgrace.

I asked the representative I spoke to, Marnie, exactly what happens if a licensee fails to act upon the Commission's recommendations in the event of a player dispute where the Commission finds in favour of the player. The (not especially unexpected) answer was that, after the two week period the licensee has to honour the Commission's requirements, and failure to comply leads to a removal of the license and an end to the casino's residence on Mohawk territory. Sadly, the reality is that the Kahnawake Commission has never to date been seen to take action against its rogue elements, and they have been typically ineffectual in a recent case of player mistreatment on the part of one of the operators they "regulate" - see my most recent Crystal Palace article. However, I picked up a contact here, and just maybe it'll be useful on subsequent occasions when a player applies to them and gets the silent treatment.

There were several regulatory jurisdictions on display - Alderney, Isle Of Man and Malta. I had a chat with one of the Alderney representatives - and ended up possibly more confused about the labyrinthine processes involved in government regulation than I was before we started speaking. However, the important thing is that these ARE governmental bodies and, as such, are extremely accountable. Since more and more operations are heading for the safe haven of genuinely regulated jurisdictions since the UIGEA was passed, this can only be beneficial for the gambling consumer.

My last port of call was with Net Entertainment. I don't recall ever hearing of a player complaint from a Net Entertainment-powered casino, and as such I just wanted to stop by their stand and acknowledge what seems to be a job well done. I was also curious to know why the Cherry group had recently closed down one of their operations, Casino Domain: was it linked to the US legal situation? The rep I spoke to told me that Cherry do not have a strong US focus and as such were not badly impacted by the passing of the UIGEA. The closure of Casino Domain was apparently a result of restructuring - the "Cherry" brand has now been dropped and reabsorbed by the original owners, Bets On.

It was a brief, but hopefully productive, visit.

Articles on last year's ICE:

Gambling Federation.

Playtech.

Post a Comment

May 2005 | June 2005 | July 2005 | September 2005 | October 2005 | November 2005 | December 2005 | January 2006 | February 2006 | March 2006 | April 2006 | May 2006 | August 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | June 2008 | July 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | March 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 |