Microgaming VP doubling rigged

[jsp377]

TheBloke's answer is the most obvious one if you accept the assumption that this is what Microgaming has done. That's what I expected as soon as the problem was brought up. His answer is also very much pseudocode, and doesn't take a lot of imagination OR inside information to come up with.

[winbig]

Originally Posted by jsp377

TheBloke's answer is the most obvious one if you accept the assumption that this is what Microgaming has done. That's what I expected as soon as the problem was brought up. His answer is also very much pseudocode, and doesn't take a lot of imagination OR inside information to come up with.

There's no assuming to it....

If there's no packet being sent to your computer after you pick a card, then that's enough information for it to be a fact that the win/loss is predetermined once you click 'double'....

How else, besides sending that packet of information to your computer, are they letting the software know that you've won/lost? ESP?

All of this is moot anyways. The balance goes up or down once you click double. That's enough proof that it's predetermined.

[TheBloke]

jsp and winbig are right. It is blatantly obvious that this is what is happening, there is no alternative. I already explained what events first caused me to be aware of this - if you play the game on the modem it will be obvious to you that the server is not contacted when a double card is clicked, whereas the server is contacted after every other user action. Therefore the client must already know the result. I did test this by checking network traffic - no data is sent between the client and server at this point.

I am surprised at those who are so quick to cast aspersions when they themselves have no basic understanding of what is going on, or how one would test what is going on. If I know nothing on a subject I generally defer to those who do.

[henryVIII]

Originally Posted by TheBloke

If I know nothing on a subject I generally defer to those who do.

OK, if you are therefore deferring to me then I can only re-state that at the very least they have delivering a game different to what they say they are.

That is NOT a good thing BTW.

[tennis_balls]

while i don't think it's rigged, i do agree that it's a crock of shite.

a possible solution would be to have the player check a box that he has a high-speed connection and then only offer this illusion to the dial-up customers

[TheBloke]

Originally Posted by henryVIII

OK, if you are therefore deferring to me then I can only re-state that at the very least they have delivering a game different to what they say they are.

That is NOT a good thing BTW.

Deferring to you? This is a joke I take it?

[henryVIII]

Originally Posted by TheBloke

Deferring to you? This is a joke I take it?

Well, not in relation to the fact that you can't understand that some people find what they are doing to be deceitful, suspicious, stupid or just 'not a good thing'.

[jsp377]

He already said that it was probably a stupid, but well-intentioned, idea to do this. And while I understand how people can feel deceived, it's no different than using an inverse distribution function to determine the result of a slot spin, or making three rights instead of a left. They're just different paths to the same result.

And, let's not kid ourselves here, we've already taken a big step from classical gambling by using RNGs to simulate cards. Is what MG has done really so much further a step as to infuriate us like this?

[Vesuvio]

Originally Posted by jsp377

He already said that it was probably a stupid, but well-intentioned, idea to do this.

I agree it's stupid, but we've no idea if it was well-intentioned. I can imagine the programmers thinking up this clever idea and having a quick laugh at the suckers who'll torment themselves selecting a card while not realising it makes no difference.

Originally Posted by jsp377

And while I understand how people can feel deceived, it's no different than using an inverse distribution function to determine the result of a slot spin, or making three rights instead of a left. They're just different paths to the same result.

It is different, though. The player has no influence on most slots after clicking on "spin". There should be an influence over doubling when you select a card.

Originally Posted by jsp377

And, let's not kid ourselves here, we've already taken a big step from classical gambling by using RNGs to simulate cards. Is what MG has done really so much further a step as to infuriate us like this?

The fact that trust is such a huge issue with on-line gambling is why this behaviour of MG is so unacceptable. If the software providers deviate from simply using the RNG to generate cards they're opening a can of worms.

[Mousey]

Allow me one last swing at the expiring equine:

I'll accept the fact that this 'quickie' version of VP Double Up provides no added house edge and the end results (in the long term) are essentially the same. However, I still contend that, as a player, what I want to see on my computer screen is a close approximation of what is actually happening in my card game. (Don't say, well, it could show you screen after screen of 01s and 00. You know what I mean. ) If I am not choosing between 4 'cards' then don't show me 4 cards. Simple. This is not slots we're talking about.

I'd still like more info on B&M VP games. Having a difficult time running down specific info on the double up feature.