Dancing Around the Truth About CardSpike

[Nandakishore]

But if reform comes to the US, I suspect not giving up may bear greater fruit than what appears now, and perhaps more may also be willing to finally open their mouths to the benefit of the industry.

I don't think that a reform of the way of thinking to put profit above all other interests is going to come to US or to any other part of the world in the near future. We cannot wait until it happens, and I think we don't have to. We have to solve our present problem now. What we need is a clear cut position of the affiliates who should demand answers to the following questions:

1. What has CAP to say to the severe accusations of GPWA/APCW? And this has to be done publicly for the affiliates.
2. If the accusations are true, then
a) what do they plan to do? AND
b) what the affiliate programs plan to do?
3. If the accusations are not true, then how do GPWA/APCW justify their actions?

[Betpartners]

a) If the GPWA and APCW decide to pursue other alleged rogue elements pervading this game with the same gusto and determination, then hallelujah. It's about time.

b) Go back into your "professional" shell, and those that see this as a personal thing against Lou, or just a rival business shitting on the competition from the great height of ethics & morality, will have their point made, in time.

c) You'll then find yourselves classed as the rogue element by default, and probably not before time.

I vote for letter a.

b and c, especially c seem somewhat pointed, sorry i expressed an opinion contrary to the majority, probably wont do me any good to debate this much further

[Betpartners]

This is a self regulated industry. When wrongs occur, such as affiliates not getting paid, it fall on the community to come together and make things right. In our community we are all competitors. Even as competitors we work together, we must for the greater good. And doing so this community has done many positive things as Dom pointed out.

This is the first time within the community affiliates were silenced, by the administrators of the forum they went to for help, for just wanting to get paid.

Of course the community is going to look at it. Who else but a "competitor" or member of this community would bring these issues to light. We can not count on the US government, we can not count on the main stream media. We count on ourselves.

Truth is truth, no matter who uncovers it. To discount it based on the fact competitors are involved, in this industry, is unjustified.

Point accepted Anthony, maybe a debate on regulating the industry involving a wide range of individuals from all sectors not just webmasters and affiliates but affiliate managers and so forth is worth discussing at these conferences so that it is not put upon competitors regulating each other.

[joeyl]

b and c, especially c seem somewhat pointed, sorry i expressed an opinion contrary to the majority, probably wont do me any good to debate this much further

No, don't be a plum Betpartner. You can hang around and give your opinion and change it or not, whenever you so wish old boy.

I'm easy.

[Betpartners]

No, don't be a plum Betpartner. You can hang around and give your opinion and change it or not, whenever you so wish old boy.

I'm easy.

No no i will continue to join in this forum, i like it, what i mean is that if one continues to argue a point in the face of so much opposition one can then easily be associated with "rogue" elements, or at least sympathetic to their cause, that i want to avoid.

[mojo]

No no i will continue to join in this forum, i like it, what i mean is that if one continues to argue a point in the face of so much opposition one can then easily be associated with "rogue" elements, or at least sympathetic to their cause, that i want to avoid.

No worries Betpartners. You can always say your peace here. Many of us have discussed this issue ad nauseum and are trying to move forward to come to some conclusion but there is still a ways to go. We are getting there though.

[Nandakishore]

A competitor even with the very best of intention and the highest integrity cannot be relied upon to be the investigator and prosecutor, it is all about perception.

This is true, but GPWA has also certain obligations to its members, the affiliates. I don't think their members would have been happy if all forums had been talking about the CardSpike affair except GPWA, especially since some of the GPWA members were directly victims of the affair. In other words, I don't think GPWA had any other choice, also because CAP did not allow those victims to use their forum to come out with their complaints.

[Rhino]

A competitor even with the very best of intention and the highest integrity cannot be relied upon to be the investigator and prosecutor, it is all about perception.

This is true. But I think you need to realise that when one forum abuses its trust to affiliate programs and affiliates, they will go to another forum and voice their concerns there. Where else can you go to, to voice your concerns? This is a tight industry, everyone talks, and interacts. Members voiced their concerns firstly with CAP, were banned, locked out. Members moved to GPWA where their voiced their concerns.

In addition if you are surrounded by forum members that generally are loyal to you they will back you up and take what you say at face value, were is the checks and balances that are required in this, were is the inpartiality.

GPWA I am sure realises, that if they were to walk down the same path as CAP, GPWA members would voice their opinons, like we did with CAP. We aren't anybodys lackeys or troops - we are affiliates who form our own opinons.

Michael you say you have sat on info for months, you say others broke the story, that gives an impression that there are indeed others that could have carried out the investigation and that you could have provided documantation in support of your allegations.

Gambling 911
GPWA
Poker room and Casino owners
Affiliate Managers

You only need to talk to people in these groups, some members in these groups have known for a while - but didnt jump at the chance to start pointing the finger. More information was obviously indeed before making the decision to go live with the story. Accusing someone like CAP, who have done so much for affiliates, is something that no one takes lightly. CAP = industry leader.

The industry insiders may know who is telling the truth and who is not and who to belive, but the public wont and surely it is the public that visit you and are potential members that are most important here.

Agreed.

[thepokerkeep]

You misread me. Maybe I worded it badly, but I think I said what I meant?

My entire post tried to explain that this is not so. Affiliate Media is a company providing the software and other services to Pap and CAP.

What you are saying is like Cake IS cardspike. It is not. Cardspike is using Cake as a software provider.

When you say CAP did this or that, you are saying Steve, Christine, Robin, me and 8000 other people did it. Probably you did it too, if you are a CAP member.

This matters, these kind of generalizations start wars and prejudice. When you start accusing large groups of people of items that are attributed to only a few, this becomes a fixed idea. So we draw a red cross on the forehead of every CAP member, and a green one on the forehead of every GPWA member, and a purple one on the forehead of every Poker Affiliate Lisitings member, and so on.

Dominique, you're using the same kinds of word games that Lou and Warren are using to defend themselves.

Lou stated very clearly that CAP is his house. When referring to CAP or PAP in these threads, we all know it really refers to Lou and Warren not the general membership.

Lou and Warren are the figure heads behind CAP. What they do and how they conduct themselves reflects directly on CAP. CAP's policies and ethics are in question here. This is a CAP issue as much as a personal issue concerning Lou and Warren.

Furthermore, CAP is not making any distinction between GPWA, the community and Michael Corfman, the person. They have banned most of Michael's employees. They also went after Jeremy Enke and included his closest friends in that banning frenzy.

That is just wrong, and it is destructive to the entire affiliate community.

What is really destructive to the entire affiliate community is the conduct of CAP's top management. Their abuse of power on CAP/PAP is just wrong.

I'd also like to point out that I have nothing but respect for Randy Ray, you, Steve, Christine and Robin and none of you are being accused of anything in these threads.

Unfortunately, Lou and Warren chose to use the CAP and PAP forums for their unethical behaviour so in essence, they brought CAP into it.

[Dominique]

I'll give this up.

I wasn't trying to play word games, I am seriously worried about the direction this is taking. If you knew me, you would know I don't play games of that sort.

If the affiliates at CAP are not making a distinction between the GPWA management and the people at GPWA, it makes it all the more worrysome.

[Caruso]

Neither is wrong here. Dominique is not playing word games - she sees CAP as in "CAP community" as distinct from CAP as in "Fabiano, Jolly and all the business interests thereof". This is essentially right.

However, where the CAP forum is so closely associated with Fabiano, and in which he has been such a central member, it's totally normal for people to merge the two entities which Dominique sees as distinct. As an observer more than a participant I certainly see them as one, and I would invariably refer to Fabiano, Jolly and the CAP forum community collectively as "CAP".

[Caruso]

FYI, I've done another writeup on my site, chronicling the latest / last developments.

[universal4]

Can you post another link?

Rick
Universal4

[Fergie]

An online community is supposed to be just that - a community. As a community, when one refers to the community, one usually means the active membership as a whole.

In the case of CAP, however, the membership may only voice opinions that are approved by Lou and Warren. When they express an opinion or raise a question that is determined by the owners to be against CAP's (Lou and Warrens') best interests, they are banned. This is a fact and cannot be denied. We have see it happen time and time again over many years. Many CAP members are not aware of it, after all, banned members aren't telling their tale at CAP. Present CAP members may honestly feel angry at the charges laid against CAP principles. Those of us who have been around for years know the true storey. Dominique knows the truth, too. After all, she's stood silently by Lou all these years.

Therefore, in the case of CAP, when one says "CAP" they ARE referring to Lou/Warren.

They have lost their credibility, and the thing about credibility is that it takes years to build, seconds to lose, and, once lost, an eternity to earn it back. It's one thing you can't BUY.

[Dominique]

Neither is wrong here. Dominique is not playing word games - she sees CAP as in "CAP community" as distinct from CAP as in "Fabiano, Jolly and all the business interests thereof". This is essentially right.

However, where the CAP forum is so closely associated with Fabiano, and in which he has been such a central member, it's totally normal for people to merge the two entities which Dominique sees as distinct. As an observer more than a participant I certainly see them as one, and I would invariably refer to Fabiano, Jolly and the CAP forum community collectively as "CAP".

I guess it doesn't matter. My point was that affiliates are not at war here. I do think that was heard and I don't mean to argue about terminology, long as everyone is aware of it.

I cannot correct what happened at PAP, I was not there and not aware and have no say.

I am trying to correct recent CAP bannings. I don't know how successful I will be, but it matters to me and I don't like to see these sort of things on my watch. I have no banning privileges myself and have never banned anyone there. I think it's time though that some checks and balances are put in place regarding bannings and I will push for this. Bryan (Casinomeister) was unbanned almost immediately. I am working on reversing other bannings.

I do agree with bannings when people attack others, personal attacks that is. IMO that is not acceptable on a professional board. I do not agree with other types of bannings.

I am not CAP, I don't make the decisions. But bannings are something that disrupts the community and I'll make it my business.

[Caruso]

Can you post another link?

Rick
Universal4

Again, if it's OK to:

http://www.hundredpercentgambling.co...dspike-and.htm

This statement appears attributed to Fabiano, in Friday's APCW report:

Effective Media runs the Cardspike affiliate programme as part of their "consulting" arrangement.

What is the source? I've either lost it, forgotten it or never saw it. The only one I can find is the "offshore investor" admission.

In trying to satisfactorily join all the dots here, I've come to this:

Cardspike is a white label, ie. an affiliate site dedicated to just one (rogue) property. The people who "own" Cardspike are the people who own Cake Poker. What CAP presumably "own" is the domain name and the rights etc, but they can make a fair case for non-"ownership" of Cardspike on the basis that the owner of a white label is not the affiliate site which presents itself as the casino (pokerroom / sportsbook etc), but the software provider, Cake Poker. The affiliate does not purchase anything. He simply acquires the right to a URL, along with the other additional interests that a white label offers the affiliate.

As such, the only interest, beyond the provider, is of an affiliate nature. There is no ownership.

The PDF that Michael published is CAP's (sorry, Dominique) contract with Cake Poker to market a white label, Cardspike. This represents the maximum ownership interest possible in the circumstances (white label), but is nonetheless not actual "ownership" of anything in real terms; just a glorified affiliate contract. Nobody actually bought anything, which would be completely distinct from the purchased rights to use the software for an actually distinct, new casino.

As such, when Effective Media acknowledged running the "affiliate programme" (source, please?), they effectively acknowledged running the operation, the operation being of an affiliate nature. But they were never "owners", as this is a technical impossibility. As such, they didn't technically lie at any point, in legalistic terms. But they skirted rather shabbily around the truth. They could have said "yes, we have full marketing rights to the Cardspike white label, which is our brand".

Having acquired the white label rights, they used "Domain Holdings" in Gibraltar to stand as the legal owner, although, as we know, this is not actual ownership, which belongs exclusively to Cake Poker. This was, obviously enough, to cloak the relationship. Domain Holdings does not own Cardspike, any more than CAP does.

My original point of departure was that Cardspike was ownable by entities other than Cake Poker, whereas this would not appear possible. The maximum interest possible is an affiliate interest, in the suped-up affiliate nature of a white label.

Is that it?

[Integrity]

What is the source? I've either lost it, forgotten it or never saw it. The only one I can find is the "offshore investor" admission.

Source: CAP TV January 16th. Watch from the 3:33 mark to 3:51

Lou Fabiano: "I own a separate company called Effective Media Group. I do consulting. If you're a new start up (online gaming site) and you want to have somebody help you set up your affiliate program and get it off to a good start, and manage your affiliate program, I offer consulting services that do that."

================================================== ==

Cardspike is a white label... The people who "own" Cardspike are the people who own Cake Poker. What CAP presumably "own" is the domain name and the rights etc, but they can make a fair case for non-"ownership" of Cardspike ...

No offense intended, sir, but I think that's a bit of hair splitting.

If I purchased the rights to run a McDonalds franchise I would still be responsible for my customers. The food is shipped in and I get to use the McDonalds name, but it's still my job to run the restaraunt and provide good service. My actions would fall upon me --- not McDonalds Corporation--- and to say I don't actually own the restaraunt because it's a franchise (or white label) wouldn't be an acceptable answer.

Much the same thing is true here. It's not Cake's fault that the people running Cardspike failed in their obligations to pay players and webmasters. Please don't allow them to use sematics to shift the blame again. Had Cardspike been run properly... had PAP not banned people... had Lou and Warren not acted deceptively... none of this would be as big of an issue as it is.

[vinism]

Caruso,

I have a great deal of respect of the time and energy you've invested into sorting this out. But I don't think you've quite connected the dots correctly here. Here's a quick list of some of the more salient points in my mind, and how they connect. Note, none of this addresses the various conflicts of interest, bannings and other issues that these facts raise. But rather it is an attempt to sort out some of the facts so the implications can be discussed.

1. CardSpike is a white label casino powered by Cake Poker software (more on that later).
2. Effective Media Group handled the affiliate marketing for CardSpike. This is supported by Lou and Warren's admissions of the following:
a. Effective Media is a "consulting" company designed to help launch and manage affiliate programs for online casinos and poker rooms.
b. CardSpike was indeed a client of Effective Media.
c. The person who was operating as CardSpike's affiliate manager was employed by CardSpike.
d. Affiliate marketing material for CardSpike indicated it had been sent by Effective Media.

(Note, this is not an exhaustive list of the documentation, just the hilights)

3. The Cake-CAP proposal Michael posted wasn't a marketing proposal, but rather a licensing agreement for CAP to operate an online poker room. Why do I say this?
a. First, the proposal specifies Cake is providing services to CAP, not the other way around.
b. Cake agrees to give CAP an online poker room with full support for both the client and back-end operations.
c. Cake even agrees to provide upgrades and maintenance at no cost.
d. CAP was listed as being responsible for branding the poker room. Not just marketing it, but branding it. That means coming up with the name, etc. This was clearly supposed to be CAP's room, not Cake Poker's.
e. And finally, the rake and fee schedule indicated the amount of revenue going to CAKE. That clearly indicates that this was not just a marketing arrangement. CAKE was taking a percentage of the revenue as payment for their services. In a typical affiliate marketing agreement, CAP would have been taking a percentage of CardSpike's share.

The proposed relationship between CAP and Cake would be similar to a small business using Yahoo or Google to power their online store. While the software is clearly Google's and Yahoo's, nobody would say they owned the business. The ownership belonged to the operator, which in the case of the proposal was CAP.

Clearly what was proposed appears to have taken on a different form. Michael offered a great explanation for how this might have worked here.

Nothing in the post addresses the various conflicts of interest that have arisen, or the various connections between Lou, Warren, Effective Media and CardSpike. But I hope at the very least this provides a decent summary of some of the key facts so that discussion can continue.

[joeyl]

Open a skin under Partygaming and call it empire, rent the software from Microgaming and call it 32red, or open a skin under cake and call it Cardspike.

Same difference to me.

[Caruso]

No offense intended, sir, but I think that's a bit of hair splitting.

If I purchased the rights to run a McDonalds franchise I would still be responsible for my customers....Please don't allow them to use sematics to shift the blame again.

I didn't say it wasn't hair-splitting. What I tried to do above was join the dots and make sense of the various claims. Eg, Michael said CAP "owned" Cardspike, but Lou denied it. Can these two statements be reconciled in any way, even if it comes down to technicalities? Hence, the above attempt at a summary. As I see it, Michael is correct in a broad sense, as CAP does appear to have effective ownership of Cardspike. Lou claims the technicality of non-ownership in a legal sense. Lou is clearly tap-dancing around the reality of the situation, but he is safe in those legal terms, as I currently understand the situation.