Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Originally Posted by Macgyver

This was in response to the "how can we be sure it's 50/50?" question, and I'd like to ask something about it. Bear with me/humor me/laugh at me, but it's something that I've been thinking about.

When you double, you have the dealer's card face up and four cards to pick from, correct? If the card you pick is higher than the dealer's, than you double your winnings (hence the name).

Doesn't that mean, though, that you have a 1 in 4 chance of picking a higher card (which isn't 50/50)? I know that's over-simplifying things a lot, but it's a start to this nagging question. Not to mention that you have to factor in the possibility that if the dealer has a King, you only have a 4 in 51 chance (deck is missing a King and only one of the four Aces can give you a win).

Does that make sense?

It doesn't matter whether there are 4 cards to pick from, or all remaining 51: an unseen card is an unseen card, assuming that those 4 are picked out on random.

Pretend you're playing the game with a real deck of cards: Pick one card out and look at it. You need to find a card that is bigger than what you looked at first. Does it matter if you pick one out right away, or if you pick 4 first (face down), then pick one out of those 4? Of course not.

Only the upcard matters. Yes, when you pick out an ace first, then you don't have a chance of winning. However, this is balance when picking a deuce first where you can't lose.

[nektar4d]

Originally Posted by Simmo!

Issues like this require a balanced view, not an emotional one, if they are to be taken anywhere. That's no sleight on you TLN, as I think this is one of the most interesting threads in a long time, and for me personally, I won't be playing here.

I haven't played in EH so I cannot be considered emotional...well, in such balance, I could say that the whole story is horryfying for me as a player!
Very-very interesting thread indeed and kudos to "thelawnet" for discovering and projecting the case in public. Yes another casino I won't try also personally.
Finally, I am curious if this thread is enough evidence for entering the casino (or the "superior control" software ) to the rogues section?

Another smaller detail:
On the main page of their site they have the seal of GOM () with an award for:
"VEGAS TECHNOLOGY - Voted the "Top New Online Casino" Software 2005!"
I searched at GOM 2005 awards page (http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.co...-poll-2005.php) and couldn't find anything like that.
Am I missing something or is it another possible fake seal?

[Macgyver]

Originally Posted by Aindreas_Daoc

It doesn't matter whether there are 4 cards to pick from, or all remaining 51: an unseen card is an unseen card, assuming that those 4 are picked out on random.

Pretend you're playing the game with a real deck of cards: Pick one card out and look at it. You need to find a card that is bigger than what you looked at first. Does it matter if you pick one out right away, or if you pick 4 first (face down), then pick one out of those 4? Of course not.

Only the upcard matters. Yes, when you pick out an ace first, then you don't have a chance of winning. However, this is balance when picking a deuce first where you can't lose.

OK, I can understand that reasoning ... but doesn't that still mean that every time you double, you stand a 4 in 51 chance of winning rather than a 1 in 2 chance?

[soflat]

Originally Posted by Macgyver

OK, I can understand that reasoning ... but doesn't that still mean that every time you double, you stand a 4 in 51 chance of winning rather than a 1 in 2 chance?

No. Before any cards are turned over you have a 1 in 2 chance (ignoring ties) because you can only turn over one card for yourself (the other down cards don't matter; they might as well still be in the deck after you pick).

Once the dealer card is shown, then the odds change since there are only 51 cards left and you have to pick one to beat that upcard.

[Sodax77]

Originally Posted by nektar4d

...Am I missing something or is it another possible fake seal?...

Well...
Top New Casino - Winner
Caribbean Gold

"Caribbean Gold Casino is owned by the English Harbour Group"
http://www.gamblingonlinemagazine.co...ibbeanGold.php

But...

After i checked their VeriSign-logo, i found:

SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM is a
VeriSign Secure Site


Security remains the primary concern of on-line consumers. The VeriSign Secure Site Program allows you to learn more about web sites you visit before you submit any confidential information. Please verify that the information below is consistent with the site you are visiting.


Name SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM
Status Expired
Validity Period 25-FEB-04 - 13-MAR-06
Server ID
Information Country = AG
State = Antigua
Locality = St. John's
Organization = EH New Ventures Gaming Inc.
Organizational Unit = not available
Organizational Unit = Terms of use at www.verisign.com/RPA (c)01
Common Name = secure.englishharbour.com


If the information is correct, you may submit sensitive data (e.g., credit card numbers) to this site with the assurance that:
This site has a VeriSign Secure Server ID.
VeriSign has verified the organizational name and that EH NEW VENTURES GAMING INC. has the proof of right to use it.
This site legitimately runs under the auspices of EH NEW VENTURES GAMING INC..
All information sent to this site, if in an SSL session, is encrypted, protecting against disclosure to third parties.


To ensure that this is a legitimate VeriSign Secure Site, make sure that:

The original URL of the site you are visiting comes from SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM.
The URL of this page is https://digitalid.verisign.com.
The status of the Server ID is Valid.

Also:
SuperSlots - Status Expired
Caribbean Gold Casino - Status Expired
Silver Dollar Casino - Status Expired
All Poker Casino - Status Expired
Millionaire Casino - Status Expired

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

I can still use the number generated by the RNG and apply it to a formula which says "If (RNG>.00000000001) {dealercard="Ace";}"... LOL...

Good point. It could still be perfectly random but not 'balanced'. It reminds
me of a great story from my statistic teacher.

A local boy scout group decided to arrange a charity lottery. They sold a lot of tickets labeled #1 and upwards. (they sold several thousands).
When they had the drawing of the numbers they did it the following way.
They had 11 labels #0,#1.....#9 and #X in a sack. They took a random label to find the first digit of the number and put the label back in the sack. And repeated this process to find the next digit. Whenever they got #X they would stop and terminate the digit sequence.

This algorithm favors the small numbers. #1-#9 is extremely likely to be drawn this way etc. Some people was not satisfed with this, especially not since the boy scouts had accuired most of the small numbers themself

This was taken to court and the ruling was in favor of the boy scouts. The judge said that since all tickets had a CHANCE to be drawn it was a 'fair' lottery.

No, it did not happen in the states where must of the stupid court ruling occours, it happened in.... ENGLAND!

Zoozie

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt

It would depend to some extent on the nature of the programming... how likely is such an error to occur by accident? My guess is not likely at all. And in a court case you could have a few expert coders testify to that and that would be it, you'd win. No direct evidence of the casino's actions is needed.

You've got the idea. Again, I am not saying that anything occurred - and I haven't done any calculations to test anything - but accidental programming errors are still possible. I'm not going any deeper than this, though, because I don't want them to get any ideas.

Zoozie... LOL...

[Casinomeister]

The Wiz was in touch with me and he's looked into this. He says he'll be going on the record soon - hopefully making a public posting within 24 hrs.

[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

And it may be premature to say the the Wiz will be back sometime today/tonight with his results. It may be until the end of the week. We'll see.

[thelawnet]

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.