Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

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'?

Let me put it this way.

Had it been me, I probably would NOT have released the code for the number of possible consequences listed above. I would rather have dealt with the uncertainty rather than put everything into someone elses's hands and thus having no control over the situation.

There are plenty of other casinos who have done that in the past and stonewalled all of us until the cows came home. EH did not.

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.

NDA is a requirement throughout the industry - you don't get shit without an NDA. They were willing to forego this presumably because they trusted me (wise or not, you decide).

The reason I don't share this code with others is because I was asked not to - and thus I have not, and will not.

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.

1. They had about a day or two tops.
2. As I have explained before, it is MUCH easier to say this than to do this. I'm not going to bother with that again because it is simply ridiculous for anyone to deliberately think illogically when writing code.
3. They could not have known that I was going to request the real code - furthermore, they could not have anticipated the many questions that I was going to ask - and then you have the possible consequences I listed above.

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

First of all, the bonus game was NOT implemented. Secondly, what code was actually executed returned with an error. And thirdly, if you think you can do it, then do so.

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.

Agreed on the first part. Secondly, one cannot necessarily intercept an error if an error isn't properly reported, either by players, or by their error checking system. You cannot assume that they KNEW the code was faulty until the time it was reported - otherwise there would be no bugs in ANY software.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

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.

Based on what I have heard from others (and I haven't checked directly with them), I stand corrected.

[AceMan76]

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

You also have to wonder what the players are thinking . . . how do we or even you know that this is the actual code that was used. The only entity with an interest in covering something up is EH and guess who controls access to the evidence . . . EH. If this was truly an isolated incident, then provide the log files over the past few years to prove it. Until that is done, I give no credence to anything they state.

Bottom line for me, even if I accepted their explanation, is that there are plenty of other casinos that have not royally screwed over players with botched code and then tried to cover it up with a lame knee-jerk excuse that was blown out of the water and had to be retracted.

I have never deposited at EH and I never will and I will actively discourage my friends and acquaintances from ever playing there.

[soflat]

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.

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

The code proves they were developing a bonus game and was a nice little support for their story. But it does not prove anything. It is a distraction at this point.

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

First of all, the bonus game was NOT implemented. Secondly, what code was actually executed returned with an error. And thirdly, if you think you can do it, then do so.

I could write something like this in a few hours, without question. Java is not my language, but I do write C# code, which is near identical, and having come up with a reason why a 50/50 game might not behave 50/50, and having a lot existing classes (random number libraries, cards, etc.), I think it would be pretty easy to come up with some code.

Again, I am not saying that that is the case, as we do not know. But it's absolutely incorrect to say that they could not have mocked up this code.

Agreed on the first part. Secondly, one cannot necessarily intercept an error if an error isn't properly reported, either by players, or by their error checking system. You cannot assume that they KNEW the code was faulty until the time it was reported - otherwise there would be no bugs in ANY software.

Erm, yes we can, they said they had already scheduled an update for the software, and that explains how the code started behaving fairly, because they had previously arranged for the code to be fixed.

Why would you schedule an update of this nature, rather than just shutting the whole thing down?

This bit at least doesn't add up.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by soflat

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

The code proves they were developing a bonus game and was a nice little support for their story. But it does not prove anything. It is a distraction at this point.

Where is it substantiated?

[thelawnet]

Originally Posted by soflat

No. That the problem existed 2-3 years IS SUBSTANTIATED. We do not know how many times the problem allowed buggy code to be AUTOMATICALLY FIXED over the past 2-3 years.

Where is the evidence, apart from my evidence?

We only have evidence for one month.

It absolutely is not substantiated before this month.

If you have evidence, please provided it.

Otherwise, there is sadly no way to say, although you might well be right.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

I could write something like this in a few hours, without question. Java is not my language, but I do write C# code, which is near identical, and having come up with a reason why a 50/50 game might not behave 50/50, and having a lot existing classes (random number libraries, cards, etc.), I think it would be pretty easy to come up with some code.

Again, I am not saying that that is the case, as we do not know. But it's absolutely incorrect to say that they could not have mocked up this code.

I asked you to try and write illogical code... LOL... it is very difficult to mock up something that doesn't make sense.

It is easy to write in a fix, no question of that. It is even easy to write a lot of routines and calls to classes to try and obfuscate the real intent - no question of that.

I am saying that what I saw in the code is not a fix, is not obfuscation - it's plain illogical! When something is illogical, it's because the programmer did NOT think clearly.

Erm, yes we can, they said they had already scheduled an update for the software, and that explains how the code started behaving fairly, because they had previously arranged for the code to be fixed.

Why would you schedule an update of this nature, rather than just shutting the whole thing down?

This bit at least doesn't add up.

To be honest, I didn't ask this question. I also haven't asked either EH or Wiz how they determined the date, my assumption is that it was updated sometime on the 1st and thus not all results would have been normal - but that from the 2nd onwards all results should have been normal.

[kengam]

I appreciate your candid answers Spear. Can you tell us exactly what you are waiting for to complete your analasys? Is there anyway to test this code with the current code to determine if this would in fact deliver a 2:1 loss/win result? Is there any way to ask English Harbour if they have a time frame for when they will be releasing the full version of this new double up feature?


Also way back in this thread you advised us that you had an inkling of what the problem may be but you wanted to give them a chance to respond first so that you didn't provide them with a possible out. Can you elaborate on what you thought it might be and if you were right?

In exchange for your continued cooperation with questions I will refrain from being uncivil and accusatory. I know you are not at fault here.

[spearmaster]

Originally Posted by kengam

I appreciate your candid answers Spear. Can you tell us exactly what you are waiting for to complete your analasys? Is there anyway to test this code with the current code to determine if this would in fact deliver a 2:1 loss/win result? Is there any way to ask English Harbour if they have a time frame for when they will be releasing the full version of this new double up feature?

I am waiting for a few answers on how certain numbers were derived - but in one case I haven't asked the question clearly, and in another I presume my email was overlooked.

I am also thinking of writing a simple script which would simulate the scenario by brute force - and which if I proceed with it, I will make available for everyone to test and see the code.

The numbers I have received from the Wiz and GrandMaster appear to indicate that the scenario jives with the results gleaned from the logs - but I want to make sure that none of us are confused as to how I have described the scenario.

edit - Oops! I will ask EH/Odds On when they do plan to release this new bonus module, if at all - understandably, one might imagine that they are going to be a bit leery of releasing ANYTHING new at all until it has been triple-checked and approved Plus, after all the furore about anything dealing with cards must be random, even just as objects, they could presumably want to make it a bit more clear and use different elements or scrap the game altogether.

Also way back in this thread you advised us that you had an inkling of what the problem may be but you wanted to give them a chance to respond first so that you didn't provide them with a possible out. Can you elaborate on what you thought it might be and if you were right?

I wasn't exactly right but I was close enough - I surmised that the problem could possibly have occurred through a mismatch of arrays, or the incorrect array being written to. It is the second one that appears to have occurred.

In exchange for your continued cooperation with questions I will refrain from being uncivil and accusatory. I know you are not at fault here.

I'll accept that. As I have said all along, I will answer questions as they come if I can.