Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

I can see that in this casino a casino might choose to make a quick denial that there was anything wrong, and that's not necessarily indicative of guilt, merely undue haste and poor behaviour in making a statement not backed by the appropriate actions to confirm its veracity.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that given that the problem entered the software for whatever reason (and of course we cannot say for sure what the intent was), it was identified and removed from the software in the short period between it being publicly proven that English Harbour's video poker was ripping off the players and their statement being issued.

Quick denial would be accurate. Poorly-thought out denial would also be accurate.

I didn't go back and check to see if this denial came after they fixed the bug or not, I will assume you were right. But it is also possible that a denial was prepared based on some test - perhaps even an incorrect test - and sent for delivery before the actual bug was discovered.

Example: "Dewey Wins!" For non-Americans, or those of you who haven't dug that deep into American history, the New York Post printed and delivered an edition with this headline referring to the winner of the 1948 presidential election - or at least who they thought had won. Unfortunately for them, Harry Truman won the election and served as President.

Shit happens. I am not going to make any excuses for EH or why they even made that statement - but it happened, and we all knew it couldn't be true, and if they had wanted to cover that up they would not have gone so far as to have an audit done, with the result that they admitted an error and refunded bets at 120%...

The fact they fixed the code so it played fair, something they MUST have known they had done, and immediately after that code was fixed issued a statement saying nothing was wrong does not look good to me.

Sure you or they can claim that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing: that someone had found out it was broken (and that's assuming we actually believe that somehow the code could accidentally come to shortchange the player in the first place) and quietly fixed it, while at exactly the same time this was being fixed, the PR/legal/fairplay department issued a pseudo-mathematical statement saying there was nothing wrong, while not knowing what the coders were doing.

Believe it or not, I am reasonably sure this is what happened. But again, that does not excuse EH.

So for us to accept that the first statement should just be ignored and is not an indicator of malfeasance, we have to accept the following postulates:

1. That English Harbour could cause a game based on a player card being lower than the dealer card to deal lower cards to the player more often than is random, by some coding error (i.e. not deliberately trying to cheat the player)
2. That the error having been introduced into a game that does not appear outwardly to have changed and in theory should not have had its internal code changed at all, someone would go back to that game, check the code, identify the problem, and fix the bug
3. That the bug fix would be scheduled to be deployed in the tiny period between the public proof of foul play and the English Harbour statement, and the even tinier period where English Harbour could have 'reviewed their game play'
4. That having "concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games" English Harbour had no idea that the 'bug' had just been fixed, even though they had just fixed it, and must have had code check in logs, etc.

I can't go into much detail here. I did know that a statement was to be released, I did not know what it contained (and was very unpleasantly surprised). I do know what they believed at the time, even though I told them that this was clearly an erroneous belief and that they had better make certain their mathematicians - NOT their lawyers - checked the statement before it was issued.

Suffice it to say, I was probably more shocked than the rest of you when that first statement was issued, as you can ascertain from my response at the time.

After my reply, I went to bed - and when I woke up the next morning, I discovered that a full audit would be taking place because it was essential to get the facts. By this time, however, the problem had been fixed.

So yes, I basically believe that your 4 postulates are correct. It does not take long for a bug to be fixed if you are the coder - and of course it does not take long for you to change code back to what it was if you were the coder. Time is not an issue in modifying small pieces of code, though discovering the problem may take a bit more time if it was not deliberate.

Sure if you think all that's plausible, but to me given the circumstances, I don't think that it makes sense to take what they say at face value. There is prima facie evidence of cheating, and that should be enough to make any statement coming from them suspicious at best.

Prima facie evidence of a non-random game, if you don't mind. But I certainly wouldn't blame you or anyone else if you were suspicious of the statements... I was sure as hell suspicious of that first statement myself...

And we still haven't heard why this 'bug' didn't seem to affect Hot Pepper and Fire and Ice casinos.

We'll try to get to the bottom of that. But as you know, EH is the main client of Odds On, and sometimes they get stuff in advance. And sometimes they get stuff that other operators don't get.

None of the other software manufacturers are any different - nothing is instantly deployed at all operations at the same time precisely because they must be sure there are not any unusual problems - and even then problems do slip by - again, at any software manufacturer. I've personally spotted and reported problems with MGS software way back in 2000 and 2001 - mind you, they were rules-based problems (place bets not off by default on come-out roll, aces not being counted as high card in pai gow poker) - and to be honest these were just small slip-ups or different interpretations of the rules. Even MGS autoplay didn't always use correct strategy for their games.

Shit happens. Just let us figure out what the hell went wrong in this particular case - I must say I'm not all that hopeful but again, as a moderator, and for that matter as a middleman, it is incumbent on me to give every side a fair hearing.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Aindreas_Daoc

Gah, this whole thing pisses me off.

Yesterday I had a bad run at BJ on Crypto. Of course these things happen, but before I would be satisfied that it was bad luck. Now this little voice is nagging in my head "What if they pulled an EH?".

This whole thing has really reduced my enjoyment and trust level for all online gambling, not just EH.

English Harbour got caught because the adjustment to the VP game was so dramatic.

If it had been a small adjustment, or if it had been applied to a big payoff game (where it might take thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of trials to prove it wasn't paying off correctly), it might have gone on indefinitely.

I don't think it's safe to assume EH is the only casino that does this, simply because it's the only one to be caught (recently).

Mr. Shackleton blacklisted Elka/Oyster after a 200-game roulette trial. MGM software was BL'd after 700 hands of Video Poker. And of course, Casino Bar was listed after 332 game trial of Black Jack. (That one was similar to the English Harbour case, in that the game became "fair" again after the results of the original trial were reported.)

In none of those cases was there any more "proof" that the adjustments to the odds were "intentional" - other than the mathematical proof that the games were in fact not fair.

To a player, I'm not sure it matters "why" a game is not fair.

Especially since it's hard to imagine how "proof" that cheating is intentional could ever be obtained.

Whether it's intentional, or just inexplicable coincidence the net result is the same for players.

If a casino can't deal a fair game - for whatever reason - it shouldn't be recommended.

Casinos have no reason to deal fair games, except the fear of getting caught. If they can get caught, and still not get punished, they have no reason at all.

Res Ipsa Loquitur - the thing speaks for itself.

[erp1]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

Any software that has a win/loss parameter on a card game is by definition cheating software.

I agree 100%

Originally Posted by thelawnet

I don't see why you are interested in the win/loss parameter hypothesis, as it doesn't help English Harbour at all.

I don't take the obvious for given. I ask for facts and based on a critical analyze of facts I draw my conclusions.

It's the same method I used when I posted in the TrueGambler affair as greekvik.

Based on the facts that is presented until now I don’t see how a response of my 3 questions will not make my conclude that the software provider belong to the same category as Elka/Oyster, Gambling Software Systems (GSS), COA World Entertainment (Casino Bar) etc.

What is less clear to me at this time is the role and responsibility of the casinos that use the software. Just to mention some of the questions: Who knew that the software had an option to create biased results? Is it a new or an old feature? Who requested such a feature?

[dirk_dangerous]

Well said Gamemaster. There is no reason for anyone to ever trust 0dds-on (or whatever it's called these days) software again. Period.

Excuses are nothing but BS. No quarter should be given to any software or casino that screws up in this manner

Originally Posted by gamemaster

I'm sure that Bryan, Brian and Ted, plus others here will remember the Gambling Software Systems (GSS) scandal of a few years ago. For those that don't, GSS software was shown to have a "switch" in it that could change the odds of their Video Poker games by making a non-random deal. The online gambling community quickly became aware of this situation and eventually GSS went out of business, although some casinos using that software may have survived by switching to other software platforms.

The evidence presented here shows that Odds On software (or whatever its official name is) contains a similar "switch", be it in the form of a glitch or a deliberate feature. In any event, it obviously caused non-random results to occur and was repaired, which implies that their programmers now know how it happened - which further implies it could happen again.

The gambling public has no choice - in my humble opinion - but to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude towards software that fails to produce random results. If software screws up - for whatever reason - it should be boycotted, period, amen. Sure, glitches can happen to any program, but with all of the other choices out there, why should any producer of casino software be forgiven? Is the online gambler to demonstrate compassion toward those who are clearly shown to have non-random results at any time?

That's not to say English Harbor itself shouldn't survive; perhaps the glitch wasn't their fault and it's true that they've done the "right thing" by making retitution to the players involved. But it seems to me that for them to survive, they must switch software platforms asap and then work to develop their business by relying upon their fine reputation, which has taken years to establish.

Online gamblers control very few aspects of their chosen form of recreation, but choice is one of them and it's the most powerful. We are all now faced with a choice. As for me, I will never advertise or recommend or play at a casino that uses Odds On software from this point forward. I hope many others will join me in this.

GM

[jeremiahsjohnso]

Originally Posted by Zoozie

Now THIS is interesting. It is mathematically plain wrong. #wins/#losses will converge to 100% given a fair game. It is a realistic mistake for someone not used to mathematics. And the data posted by English Harbour EXCACTLY match this 50% ratio (1/3 wins and 2/3 looses)...

And given the casino had a parameter to configure for this ratio, just 1 number (the ratio) is the obvious way to make it. It would be stupid to have two % fields where you type 50% in one and 50% in the other.

The more I think about this, the more I see this as an unintentional rigging. Again, if EH wanted to screw people over, switching the doubling to 48% success would be a much better way to do it. This was too damn obvious.

And the fact that it went to 1/3 points out exactly what Zoozie suggests above -- someone got into the software and punched in "wins/losses = 1/2", thinking that they were being fair but actually changing the odds dramatically.

Note:
1) This does not justify that there should be a switch where you can alter the win/loss ratio

2) I'm still not fully satisfied by the EH responses (and their first response should be pretty much disowned). Though the refunds and open auditing were obviously a good start.

[nafanny29]

Just a thought, do they not fully test software for errors before releasing it, especially as theres huge amounts of cash at stake. I would have thought that they would test, test and test again just to make sure there was not an error in the PLAYERS favour.

And depending on what else was upgraded when the bug was put in the software maybe there are other errors still undetected.

Anyway I cannot believe that they didnt run the softwore through at least 100000 times in test mode to make sure there were no payout errors etc. Surely this is standard practice in this industry, isnt it

[Simmo!]

Originally Posted by tronk

We however all hold our personal opinion but it seems we cannot express it here without facing suspension.

LOL. So what you're saying is that it's perfectly okay to slander someone else on someone else's website? If you want to slander someone, set up your own site and take some responsibility for your actions.

The problem is that you and a few others don't think about the ramifications for others before you state your opinions. Personally I think Meister is actually pretty lenient when it comes to allowing posters to provide subjective opinion but some people just aren't satisfied with that, they feel they have the right to mouth off without the slightest concern for who it affects.

Most posters here realise that there are ways to state opinions that can more than get a point across without resorting to slanderous comments, thankfully. You are far more likely to get snowballed for a lack or respect than for stating an opinion...and not just here, but in life in general.

[tronk]

I agree that there are many ways to get your point across. I also understand that this site has to play the delvils advocate and i do think that what can be, and is discussed, is liberal. What i said probably wasnt fair, but it wasnt meant as criticism so much a comment on caruso getting banned. I apologise if i came across direspectfully to casinomeister.

[Simmo!]

Originally Posted by tronk

I agree that there are many ways to get your point across. I also understand that this site has to play the delvils advocate and i do think that what can be, and is discussed, is liberal. What i said probably wasnt fair, but it wasnt meant as criticism so much a comment on caruso getting banned. I apologise if i came across direspectfully to casinomeister.

No worries - and I apologise if i was on my soapbox for a moment there It's just that I think this board stands head and shoulders above many others because it manages to keep things in perspective and has a majority of respectful posters who do it, and themselves, credit.

[spearmaster]

Tronk -

I actually missed that comment - but as Simmo has said above, we respect everyone's opinions here, provided that you also respect other opinions and understand that there must be a point where a line needs to be drawn.

Also, I have already pointed out that we will be talking to the management shortly to find out what happened - and that any other slanging or accusations or whatever would not help - in fact, could even aggravate or compromise the situation.

Requests were made in advance numerous times - they were not heeded, which is the only reason that stronger action is being taken.

I'm not going to reiterate any more than is necessary - I will simply start giving out prizes.