View Single Post
  #130 (permalink)  
Old 3rd May 2006, 02:58 PM
thelawnet thelawnet is offline
Knave of Hearts
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 679
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 16
Thanked 128 Times in 64 Posts
Nominated 0 Times in 0 Posts
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 833
Rep Power: 22
thelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to beholdthelawnet is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casinomeister
This just in from English Harbour:

Thank you for taking the time to review and play our games. We take your comments seriously and as such have spent time reviewing our Video Poker game play and also await some feedback on an independent review from a 3rd party.

We have concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games. Although the doubling component of Video Poker is theoretically deterministic, it's common knowledge that there are varying chances for winning and losing when picking a card out of four, to play against the card that is dealt face up.

Randomness:

It's important that the frequency distribution of the cards in an adequate sample set are evenly distributed for each position in the doubling game. We have found, taking several sample sets over different and varying lengths of time, that they yield in our opinion, a non biased distribution of the cards.

Game Play:

In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.

We trust, that we have responded adequately and any doubt in peoples' mind are put to rest.

English Harbour Management

.
Oh dear. The coverup response. They stopped cheating after being caught and now deny that the software was unfair.

The worst possible choice for them. It's proof that they were cheating deliberately - they could have claimed a software error accidentaly added, but no they deny that the game was unfair and add some bullshit about the distrinution converging on 50% over time (which is true - if you took the cheating results and then added them to a fw tens of thousands of fair ones, it would appear fair).

Very foolish by them. They were caught, the evidence is incontrovertible, and now they are lying about it.

So not only are they cheating crooks, they are cheating lying crooks as well.
The Following User Says Thank You to thelawnet For This Useful Post:
Rusty (3rd September 2008)