Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

Thelawnet - your proposition is not viable. You already indicate an obvious drop of play in the period in question - yet it is not correct to assume that this lower amount of play can be applied across the preceding period when the game was normal.

If you look, you can see I did not apply the lower amount.

Originally Posted by thelawnet

The game was playing fairly from April 1 to April 12th, and for this period there were a total of 11,293 wins, and given that it was a 50/50 game, a similar number of losses. After April 12th the number of wins dropped sharply, because people lost all their money and also sensed the game was unfair

The total number of hands played from the beginning of the year is probably much higher than you used for your testing - and only dropped off dramatically when people started losing more often.

The period from April 1st to April 12th is much higher than from April 13th to May 2nd. I extrapolated the figure from April 1st to April 12th for the 'dark' period from January 1st to March 31st - not the lower number from April 13th onwards. I already used the much higher number. Accordingly, I do not believe their claim that the data showed 'normal' results when examined for the whole period is likely.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

I will need to double check on the actual period which was tested - I assumed that it was January 1 as a starting point and May 2 as a finishing point.

Mitch and MacGyver, thanks for your kind words.

Vesuvio - I don't believe that there would be an intent to deliberately mislead players as to the randomness of the cards, based on how the bonus game operates. The value of the multiplier is not contingent only on the value of the card, but also on the suit. The weighting across suits, however, is exactly even. That is to say - a 2 of clubs is the worst card worth 0.5x - but a 2 of spades would be worth 4.5x multiplier - yet they carry exactly the same weight. You would theoretically have a better chance of drawing a 2 of spades than a 3 of clubs (worth 0.65 multiplier).

There is no casino game that operates in a manner akin to that described. Regardless of whether the cards have a balancing weighting factor on their payout, cards that do not occur randomly do not exist in fair casino games.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

If you look, you can see I did not apply the lower amount.

My apologies, I probably jumped before I looked But in any case, I also assumed the test period in question - I will try and get the actual period next chance I get.

There is no casino game that operates in a manner akin to that described. Regardless of whether the cards have a balancing weighting factor on their payout, cards that do not occur randomly do not exist in fair casino games.

I think you're getting hung up on the fact that cards were used to determine the multiplier. This is unfortunate and I fully agree with you - in fact I expressed the same surprise in one of my calls with them.

Nevertheless, the bonus game is not bound by the same standards as another card game or a doubling function - it is akin to the results you get when playing a bonus round in some of the slots we play. And it was actually derived from a bonus game designed for slots.

Cards DO occur randomly in the doubling game because that is standard. Cards do NOT necessarily occur randomly in a bonus game because the cards are not meant for gambling - they are being used as objects for the purpose of awarding a bonus.

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

I think you're getting hung up on the fact that cards were used to determine the multiplier. This is unfortunate and I fully agree with you - in fact I expressed the same surprise in one of my calls with them.

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino. It would be absolute madness to introduce such a game, so unless they're absolutely mad I really don't believe they would genuinely have considered releasing it.

If they weren't planning to introduce the game then we're left with the question of why they developed a routine to deal weighted cards. I'd submit that by far the most logical reason would be that they intended to weight the doubling game. And that they did. Mitch, I really don't think this qualifies as the "conspiracy" theory - it's too straightforward and plausible. The EH version's the one that beggars belief.

[ftg]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

My apologies, I probably jumped before I looked But in any case, I also assumed the test period in question - I will try and get the actual period next chance I get.

[tennis_balls]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

For the record, my lunch consisted of a crappy hamburger, some fries and a couple of beers.

spear:

you ordered a burger in Canada??? you sir have a gambling problem!

[Pinababy69]

Originally Posted by Macgyver

Some of you need to learn some tact, for Pete's sake ...

You act like you're paying spearmaster to look at this code. The man's doing it, on his own free time, out of his desire to make his own decision about the matter and impart that decision to the forum. He's probably spent more time responding to people's comments on here than he has evaluating the code.

If you disagree with his methods and/or findings, that's your right. What isn't your right is to attack the man's character because of that disagreement.

Learn some maturity ... crap like "NEE NAW BAD ANSWER" is simply childish. Just those four words alone made me gloss over what factual information and conclusions may have been after it. How do you expect an informed discussion of the matter when it feels like a grade school in this thread?

Personally, I'm surprised spear hasn't told y'all to jump in the lake by now. He's got a lot more patience with your antics than I'm having right now.

Bravo Mac. Everything else aside, the comments you have made regarding Spearmaster, and him taking HIS time to try and wade through all this, were long overdue.

I have deliberately stayed out of this thread, because truthfully the technical aspect of it is above me. Personally, my own opinion is that I don't believe this was intentional on the part of the casino, but intentional or not, a screw-up of this magnitude is almost inexcusable. Would I play there myself? No. Would I refer anyone there? No. But do I question Spear's motives or integrity? Absolutely, unequivocally no. He has never been afraid to call a spade a spade, he's probably one of the most direct and "no bullshit" type people you will ever run across on any forum. What does he have to gain by "covering up" for a casino? For any casino? He's not an affiliate, he's not on their payroll, he's not receiving huge amounts in media buys from them. I really don't get the doubt factor.

How often is a third party even shown or given access to a casino's programming code? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say never. I think that proves at least to some degree that the casino/software provider is hoping for some sort of resolution to put this matter to rest, that they are not trying to hide anything so to speak.

The ones of you who are questioning Spear's motives, I have to ask you, what is in it for him? What would he be gaining by "covering up" for EH (well, besides all that cheap wine and stale cheese I mean)? Do you think because he moderates this board, that makes him biased in some way? So you must all be questioning Bryan as well then I suppose? I'm certainly not going to get into a debate with you, but I want Bryan and Spear to know that whatever the final findings are, I trust both of you to deal with the situation accordingly. It won't change my opinion of the casino themselves, this is a monumental screw up. Unfortunately, as life goes, everyone makes mistakes, even top notch programmers. And if that's the direction that Spear's findings take, I can accept that. Of course, there will always be the conspiracy theorists who will never be happy with that explanation.

Good job Ted, and thanks for taking the time to keep us all updated and to post what you can as you go along. Make sure you save some cheese for the plane ride home.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by tennis_balls

spear:

you ordered a burger in Canada??? you sir have a gambling problem!

I forgot... LOL... knew I should've had the rack of lamb instead

As for cheese... I thought I'd eat some at the conference just so the theory would be partly right - but I refused to partake of the Ripple...

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino. It would be absolute madness to introduce such a game, so unless they're absolutely mad I really don't believe they would genuinely have considered releasing it.

If they weren't planning to introduce the game then we're left with the question of why they developed a routine to deal weighted cards. I'd submit that by far the most logical reason would be that they intended to weight the doubling game. And that they did. Mitch, I really don't think this qualifies as the "conspiracy" theory - it's too straightforward and plausible. The EH version's the one that beggars belief.

Short answer - as I have not seen any graphic or standard text elements that indicate anything about the bonus game, I can't presume anything about how the game would be presented. I would naturally imagine that it would be clear the cards were weighted, otherwise I'd have the exact same thought that you did.

It is clear that they did not intend to weight the doubling game based on the observations derived from the code. I know this point will always be debatable - but short of the final post I will make as soon as I can, there is absolutely nothing more that I can do to convince anyone that one simply would not program a fix in this manner.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

As I said before - to have a bonus game using cards and not be deceiving players you'd have to make it 100% clear the cards were weighted. If players know cards can be weighted in the bonus game they're not going to trust the cards in the normal VP game or in any other card game offered by the casino.

I can not agree more.

But I think it is too late. I do not trust them in a 'normal' VP game anymore.

Zoozie