Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by Slotster!

Out of interest, a question for Spear, CM, Jetset and Simmo...

Have you thought about asking a few questions of some of the friendlier better known operators (Intercasino, 32RED etc), in terms of if this could possibly happen with their software? What I mean is, do they have safeguards/automatic alerts in place to notify if a specific game returns a significant percentage different from the expectation.

Without revealing too many 'insider secrets', I'm sure one of the industry insiders could offer a fascinating insight into if this is a plausible explanation in their world; or offer reasons as to why it definitely isn't.

It's happened at Intercasino before - and if I recall correctly it cost them like $1.3 million - but in this case the bug was in favor of the player. They didn't invoke the "malfunction" clause - instead they did the right thing and paid out.

Obviously since then they have improved their auditing.

Neither 32Red, nor any Microgaming operator, have any control over the code - only Microgaming does. And bugs have happened there before to the detriment of the player.

I believe Playtech controls all the code for their software as well.

To sum it up - this is not the first time a bug has been found, not by a long shot.

[sirius]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

It's happened at Intercasino before - and if I recall correctly it cost them like $1.3 million - but in this case the bug was in favor of the player. They didn't invoke the "malfunction" clause - instead they did the right thing and paid out.

Obviously since then they have improved their auditing.

Neither 32Red, nor any Microgaming operator, have any control over the code - only Microgaming does. And bugs have happened there before to the detriment of the player.

I believe Playtech controls all the code for their software as well.

To sum it up - this is not the first time a bug has been found, not by a long shot.

It wasn't a bug at Intercasino. They got hit by hackers which caused the slots to pay out on every spin after the hackers got into the server.

Bugs at other casinos were true bugs and not whole routines. You can't cause such an unfair deal with a simple mistake in the code.

By the way, wasn't there supposed to be a mathematical analysis of this code provided by EH to see if it actually delivered the results shown? It probably doesn't matter too much given that this probably was the code used, but you never know.

[Linus]

I dunno. When lawnet first posted this, I was skeptical. I've seen tons of these kinds of claims and usually they turn out to be normal variance.

But then I tried it for myself. And watched as other posters got the same 2:1 results that I got - and that lawnet originally posted.

This lasted about two days.

Then EH updated its software, and the results returned to normal -- if anything, they seemed to have introduced a player advantage. Perhaps they hoped to cover up the earlier bias.

EH had three options at that point. They could ignore it, claim their software was fair, of go the "bug" route.

They chose the worst option first. They posted a long-winded explanation saying their games were fair, and our results were bogus.

Eventually they switched to the bug route, perhaps realizing the first defense wouldn't wash, and provided Spear with some lines of code to back up their claim.

Spear, you might think I'm biased, because - as far as I was concerned, the case was closed as soon as EH posted the "our software is fair" claim - if not before that. They could have had Maria Theresa come down from heaven and swear on a stack of bibles on their behalf - at that point - and it wouldn't have made a dif.

I've never had lunch with the owners, I've never promoted their products, I'm not an affiliate, and I've never had anything to do with the affiliate industry in any way, shape or form.

My only interest in this thing is as a player, nothing else. And as a player, I couldn't imagine playing at a casino that has a proven record of cheating, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.

Your defense is that they're incredibly incompetent. But if they really are that incompetent, how can you also argue they're too competent to cheat in such an obvious way?

And if they were competent cheaters, would they have been caught?

I've asked this before, but I'm going to ask it again - suppose EH had fixed the jackpot payment, so it never got paid (and who's to say they didn't?) How many millions of trials would it take to prove such a thing?

I understand you sympathize with these guys, and you'd like to see players give them a break.

But I don't sympathize with them. They're in business to make money. And if they can't - or won't - provide a fair game, I see no reason to give my money to them.

[spearmaster]

I didn't say they were incredibly incompetent... LOL... I did say that they made some pretty dumb mistakes, but this is hopefully a once-off.

Forget the lunch - like I said, it was a crappy hamburger, some fries which Meister mooched, and a couple of beers. If anyone thinks I'm that cheap then I ought to be walking Sunset Blvd

Forget the affiliate bit - I have not promoted them in years, and never made much money with them anyhow - see above

The industry bit? Yeah, I can't argue that - no way I can deny that and I won't.

The first statement they made - rash, knee-jerk, without knowing all the facts - not going to argue with that either - but tell me none of us have ever done anything rash... I'm a multiple offender when it comes to that

The code? I wasn't given "some lines of code" - I was given the full code of every module that was involved - more than the 9xx lines that the Wizard was given.

By jackpot payment I assume you mean getting the 10x multiplier - and I can definitely assure you this is not the case because the 3 other cards with the same value (Ace) have an identical chance of being drawn, with lower multipliers. Furthermore, the weighting spread is evenly/equally distributed and the chances of drawing an ace is only a couple percent less than drawing a deuce. But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand because the bonus game was not only not meant to be active, it was missing bits and did not directly affect the value of the bet except where the wrong object was overwritten with card values and thus caused some wins to become losses.

Yes, I am involved in the industry, and yes, I know a lot of operators and manufacturers. Make no bones about that.

But first and foremost, I am a player - and I want a fair game every bit as much as every other player does. I have had the privilege of examining the code in question, which, combined with other factors which I am seeking to resolve as soon as possible, HOPEFULLY will put my mind at ease - even if it doesn't have the same effect for others.

Let me tell you once again - if I believe this code was unfairly written to take advantage of the players, I will be shouting this from every rooftop to ensure that no other manufacturer dare try to pull a stunt like this ever again.

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:

* Will he reveal the code to others?
* Will he blackmail us and demand a payment to shut him up?
* Will he tell the truth?
* Will he see the wrong thing and make us look like we deliberately cheated?
* Will he use this code to create his own game?
* Will the players believe him?
* Will he modify the code and then claim it was rigged?
* Were we stupid in not making him sign an NDA?
* Will he discover a flaw and exploit it, and maybe reveal it to others?

If you look at it this way, it is a TREMENDOUS leap of faith for them to put the integrity and possible fate of their business in my hands. If I had been in their shoes, I'm not sure that I would have DARED put my code in someone else's hands under any circumstances, fair, rigged, unintentionally flawed, etc. because it depends SOLELY on one interpretation.

Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

[soflat]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:
...
Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

The code doesn't prove much, and the fact that they gave you the code doesn't influence my opinion. It is almost insignificant, but it has become the whole focus of this investigation.

The only real proof is in the log files, which they are apparently not willing to release.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by soflat

The code doesn't prove much, and the fact that they gave you the code doesn't influence my opinion. It is almost insignificant, but it has become the whole focus of this investigation.

The only real proof is in the log files, which they are apparently not willing to release.

I have to disagree with this for a number of reasons:

1. It *is* important to try and determine whether or not the code was deliberately modified or not.
2. The analysis of logs for the period in question clearly show that the game was non-random.
3. The logs I presume you are referring to are those of the last 2-3 years based on an unsubstantiated claim from someone who himself is not willing to provide any proof. If he gives us good reason then of course we should expect to see the logs.
4. If we WERE to require the logs because of an unsubstantiated claim, that would open up a Pandora's Box of people demanding we investigate every instance in which they felt they lost unfairly without reasonable proof. This would simply cause the whole system to break down. Just take a look at the number of threads in the Complaints forum for starters...

[kengam]

Spear,

What exactly did you talk about with English Harbour folk at the conference? Did they say anything at all about the code they sent you? Did they tell you why they sent you more of the code than they did to their own auditor? (Wiz)

You have yet to go into any detail of what was talked about other than the crappy burger and mooched fries. I am curious to here anything they had to say.


on a side note and not trying to criticize you but I have noticed one thing. You have stated numerous times that they have entrusted you with the code...even more of the code than the Wiz. You are the only one who has been granted access to this amount of code. Going on and on about that simple fact is enough to make the casual observer feel that there is no way you are acting as a neutral party. When you are accused of being biased it may be because of what you say yourself. Just a thought.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

When the code was put in my hands, you have to wonder what the casino must've been thinking:

* Will he reveal the code to others?
* Will he blackmail us and demand a payment to shut him up?
* Will he tell the truth?
* Will he see the wrong thing and make us look like we deliberately cheated?
* Will he use this code to create his own game?
* Will the players believe him?
* Will he modify the code and then claim it was rigged?
* Were we stupid in not making him sign an NDA?
* Will he discover a flaw and exploit it, and maybe reveal it to others?

If you look at it this way, it is a TREMENDOUS leap of faith for them to put the integrity and possible fate of their business in my hands.

Er, what integrity?

They had just been caught with a cheating game, then denied (which they were forced to retract) that there was something wrong. They were seriously deep in the shit. This is not a normal PR move, it's 'do we have any other choice'?

They were hardly in a position to go trumpeting NDAs, although I do note that you have not shared the crappy buggy code, so I can't see that there's any difference.

If I had been in their shoes, I'm not sure that I would have DARED put my code in someone else's hands under any circumstances, fair, rigged, unintentionally flawed, etc. because it depends SOLELY on one interpretation.

Now I don't know what you think of that - or what you would have thought if you were the one entrusted with the code - but to me this alone speaks volumes, though ultimately I have to verify all of the information I have before I can actually give a full opinion.

To me it says they were really worried about how they were going to recover their reputation.

Whether the code is that which was in place or not, it's impossible for you or I to know. Suffice to say they had quite a few days to come up with a story and write some code to fit the bill.

Writing Java code that just implements a bonus game like the one described is not exactly rocket science.

Whether or not that was the code they had on there, we cannot know. There are signs that it was, but equally serious questions if it was about why they did not do anything about the players being ripped off by the code until exposed publicly, despite knowing that the code was faulty.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

C'mon Vesuvio, you keep getting stuck in on this "bonus hunting" bit with a 50/50 doubling game. Didn't it occur to you that doubling does not count for purposes of playthrough?

It certainly does. At least it did until they banned video poker completely, after they fixed their little bug.

So it seems like fair comment, given that English Harbour did indeed count it.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by kengam

Spear,

What exactly did you talk about with English Harbour folk at the conference? Did they say anything at all about the code they sent you? Did they tell you why they sent you more of the code than they did to their own auditor? (Wiz)

You have yet to go into any detail of what was talked about other than the crappy burger and mooched fries. I am curious to here anything they had to say.

Fair question.

I remember shooting the shit the first few minutes as we pored over the menus, and then discussing whether or not hamburgers had to be well done in Montreal (normally, yes, but in this particular case they made them "special" but they still sucked).

They then asked me if I was ready with a statement, to which I replied that I needed verification of a few more things. They asked me if I needed any more information, and I said "nothing more at the moment".

I also asked if only EH was affected by the bug, or all Odds On casinos, to which they responded EH was primarily affected, with a few at other casinos not within their group. That was Mitch's question.

They then opined that they would like to see this resolved as soon as possible, as it was understandably affecting their business.

Other than that, as far as I can remember, it was complaints about the crappy burger, the quality of women in Montreal (said to really know how to dress well), teasing the waitress quite a bit about her accent (Meister thought she was suggesting Spaghetti with Raspberry Sauce when she was saying Spaghetti with Asparagus). A little side BS about English football and hockey and golf, and then we all ran off to our next appointment.

Maybe Meister can remember some more - to be honest, there was really very little said about the issue other than what I have said above.

Why did I get more code than the Wiz?

The Wiz was given what he asked for - I don't know how much he did with his analysis so I can't comment further - but in order for me to try and determine exactly what happened in code, I required at least one more module than he did plus a math model (which is really insignificant to the problem but for me I wanted to be as exact as possible).

It's possible he actually got more code - but he did say something about 9xx lines, and I'm sure I have more than that.

on a side note and not trying to criticize you but I have noticed one thing. You have stated numerous times that they have entrusted you with the code...even more of the code than the Wiz. You are the only one who has been granted access to this amount of code. Going on and on about that simple fact is enough to make the casual observer feel that there is no way you are acting as a neutral party. When you are accused of being biased it may be because of what you say yourself. Just a thought.

One cannot be objective without access to as much code as required to obtain the most complete answer possible. But in any case, the additional code I asked for was one they thought they had sent - and had zero effect on the result - I just needed it to be able to completely trace the path of the procedure calls that were being used.

Getting more code does not have any effect on neutrality - if anything, it provides a more complete picture and thus would enhance neutrality.