View Single Post
Old 20th November 2008, 06:21 PM
SteveCut's Avatar
SteveCut SteveCut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Latvia
Posts: 58
WTGs: 5
WTGd at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 117
Thanked 38 Times in 17 Posts
Nominated 1 Time in 1 Post
TOTW/F/M Award(s): 0
Reputation Points: 281
Rep Power: 10
SteveCut is a jewel in the roughSteveCut is a jewel in the roughSteveCut is a jewel in the rough
Path wrote:

Quote:
Firstly, dealing with the ‘randomness’ across all of our games. We are responsible for providing fair and reliable casino games but we have no influence (in any way, shape or form) over the payout percentage that the games deliver; that is the job of the Random Number Generator (RNG).
This is not true. The RNG has no say in the payout percentage. It's task is simply to generate random numbers.

Quote:
The RNG delivers results randomly, doesn’t consider the size of the bet (whether it’s £1, £10, £1,000 or even free play) nor does it recognise who the player is. It exists purely to churn out an outcome as random as man can make. Indeed, as a condition of our Remote Gambling Licence, we have to provide certification that the equipment used is tested in that it delivers a fair outcome. Given the role of the RNG, I trust that you can see that it is impossible for us to track players and ‘randomise’ the outcome of any bet in order to make that player forfeit their wagers.
The RNG does not make it impossible to track players or influence the outcome of bets. It's true that it does not do this itself, but that is hardly the point. This is like saying that a car engine set to rev at 3000 r.p.m. guarantees that the car will progress at a constant speed! It ignores the rest of the car (gears, clutch, brakes etc.). You are ignoring the rest of the software where it would be perfectly possible to control these things. A perfect RNG is no guarantee of fairness!

Quote:
We offer many variants of Blackjack and Baccarat which are played in a range of decks from single up to eight. In an on-line environment the decks are shuffled at the completion of each individual game; an act which actually reduces the house edge in favour of the player (not my statistical analysis, but that of the wizardofodds).
This is a very disingenuous statement. You must know very well that you do not shuffle the pack to reduce the house-edge and to give the players an advantage. You shuffle after every game to thwart card-counting and thereby protect the house-edge.

Regards
Steve
Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to SteveCut For This Useful Post:
Alexishot69 (20th November 2008), funky_seagull (27th November 2008), Jasminebed (20th November 2008), Jufo (23rd November 2008), LaHutti (27th November 2008), NASHVEGAS (26th November 2008), SlotMonster (20th November 2008), vinylweatherman (21st November 2008), zuga (20th November 2008)