View Single Post
  #158 (permalink)  
Old 4th May 2006, 02:55 AM
thelawnet thelawnet is offline
Knave of Hearts
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 692
WTGs: 0
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 16
Thanked 151 Times in 69 Posts
Nominated 9 Times in 1 Post
Nominated TOTW/F/M Award(s): 1
Reputation Points: 1113
Rep Power: 24
thelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud ofthelawnet has much to be proud of
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard
Yesterday, May 2, I was made aware of the issue possible irregularities in the doubling feature of Odds On software. Let me assure you that the Odds On management and myself are taking this very seriously. As soon as possible I plan to conduct an analysis of all double or nothing bets made since January 1. If necessary, Odds On will hire a third party to conduct the same study. Until we have had a chance to review the log files we can neither confirm nor deny the accusations.
I guess in the event that the software was at one time fair, you will be able to identify when it stopped being fair by analysing data from each day (and depending on the amount of data that you actually have), as although it is clear that the software was behaving unfairly for a period on and before April 30 2006, it was not necessarily unfair on say January 1: otherwise it might have been noticed then. I think it reasonable to assume that this has been going on for a few weeks but not necessarily months.

I'm also interested that the Hot Pepper and Fire and Ice casinos, outside of the EH group of casinos, althought not as thoroughly tested as EH, did not appear to have aberrant (and indeed abhorrent) doubling results.

I am somewhat surprised at English Harbour's early statement about the results being consistent with a fair game as it is quite clear that the game was not fair (not withstanding that results indicate that they clearly changed the game early on 1 May, although their carefully worded statement did not explicitly denied that they had not) , and that statement is now looking premature with analysis to be conducted here.