I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now
) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.
Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).
Those factors severely distract from the only question that really can be answered by examining the code: "Does the code as provided by English Harbour explain the irregular doubling results?" That question could have (and should have) been answered quickly and dispassionately.
The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.
English Harbour / OddsOn has not been at all forthcoming. The explanation for how this screwup occurred should have been supplied by them directly long ago.
Based on what Spear has reported so far, I would guess that it is
probably an inadvertent screwup.
But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.
They should have immediately provided a comprehensive analysis of all log files from the time anyone ever started messing with the code to present, to allay fears that it was broken during some period(s) in the past. They should continue to provide log files for at least several months in the future to show that the problem is indeed fixed.
And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.
They have yet to directly reply to any of the numerous legitimate concerns raised in this thread. They are coming up awfully short in a number of respects. The magnitude of the error demands better.
As has been pointed out... they ain't exactly the only game in town. We're already gambling -- who needs the extra uncertainty?