RTG Caveats

Recently there came to light a situation concerning online casino players who patronized some establishments powered by Real Time Gaming who had their accounts confiscated by the casino security team because during routine security checks it became known that some of the players had engaged in some financial trading with players who had been red-flagged by other casinos using the same software as frauds or cheats of one kind or another.

The casino was able to make these assumptions because the eWallet known as Money Bookers had given the casino security team information about the financial transactions that had taken place between the players completely outside of the casino in question and as such it begs the question what right did Money Bookers have to pass along this information when it actually had little or nothing to do with the financial transactions that took place between the casino and the individual players. If this information had not been made available to the casino the players whom may or may not be guilty of fraud, would certainly not have faced having their accounts frozen.

Nobody wants fraud. It takes away from the legitimate players, the casino and just about anybody else which comes in contact with such practice. However the right to privacy trumps any argument for having taken such drastic actions as to have sold out their customers based solely on the suspicion of a casino security team.

 

Realtime Gaming casino software has been around a long time. The bad reputation which accompanies it has been around nearly as long.

Realtime Gaming software company is just one of many examples of a software provider which supplies to many different online casinos the games which they have to offer but has failed to police the casinos using their games for reputable and ethical behavior.

Are software providers responsible for the actions of the casinos to which they provide the games? This is a topic of heated discussion to which both sides are very passionate and there is no easy answer. Players and most affiliates believe the software provider should police its licensees because quite simply that is the most effective way to regulate an industry which has no formal regulation.

Software providers with the exception of Microgaming, the industry leader,  have until now and continue to take the stance that they are a software provider and simply provide the games and as such are not responsible for whether the individual casinos are operating in a fair and honorable manner.  Microgaming had for years always stepped in to make sure all players were paid even when a casino they licensed went bankrupt but even the industry leader has turned a cold shoulder to seeing everything in their house is in its place. While they still have yet to see a player go unpaid they have allowed a network of their licensees to snub their noses at paying debts that nobody denies the money is owed, not even the casino network which is called Grand Prive and has such casinos as Villa Fortuna or Grand Bay to name just a couple.

The fact that Microgaming has continued to license this network of casinos proven to renege on their debts owed has been a very unsettling choice amongst gambling guides and anybody savvy to the industry because this was a choice akin to deciding whether to keep a sparkling clean reputation or endure the blemish of such publicity as you are reading now.

It would be much easier to forgive the software providers for not taking a more proactive approach to policing their licensees if it weren't for the fact that in many cases the casinos all use the software provider's banking system which means in essence that the software provider is likely taking in all the money and then paying out to that respective casino that which is their share of earnings. The software provider's processor then pays the players which basically takes the casino out of the equation except for when it is convenient to throw arms up in the air and claim we're only the software provider its the casino owners who owe you the money.

It is not a great leap of the imagination to suggest that the software provider in such cases is every bit as guilty as the casino for not making sure the casino's debts are paid in full but as most who are savvy in the industry know it is not easy to be one hundred percent certain just what kind of deal was actually struck between the parent software provider and the casino owner so although much evidence points to the afore mentioned scenario being possible it is just as certain that it doesn't apply to all situations where the casino has liquidated. Suffice to say that the software provider that supplies the money processor and the customer support surely seems to have enough thumbs in the pie for any reasonable thinking person to conclude they have a bigger association with the casino in question than that of simply providing the games for the casino.

 

 

eWallet Express To Begin Cashouts Again

eWallet Express announced they would again begin cashouts in about two weeks time. This update made on 8/25/09.