Heroes Casino - Blackjack issues, slow-pay

[jetset]

Still no sign of the new software - this is still up on the website:

"We are excited to announce that we are replacing our casino with a new provider. The new casino will have more games including a whole group of new slots that you are sure to find fun and exciting. When it is ready to go we will let you know!"

[winbig]

Still no sign of the new software - this is still up on the website:

"We are excited to announce that we are replacing our casino with a new provider. The new casino will have more games including a whole group of new slots that you are sure to find fun and exciting. When it is ready to go we will let you know!"

My guess? RTG or Rival.

[vinylweatherman]

Which software provider is going to risk licensing their product to a casino, who when faced with a big winner, will publicly announce the SOFTWARE can be beaten simply by looking for patterns, and at a time when there is a very vocal group of players already making allegations that said software is not random, but "fixed" or "weighted".

What if Heroes went with RTG, and later claimed RTG could be beaten by looking at patterns, and standing their ground even when faced with statistical proof to the contrary. The software, as well as the casino, would lose credibility - which would affect all the other casinos using the software, who may be forced to seek an alternative because players themselves believed the claims of the casino as an admission of something kept as a closely guarded secret, rather than as rogue behaviour.

Heroes SHOULD be rejected by RTG, and also RIVAL, and only a provider with little to lose should take the chance. This makes it likely Heroes will return with bespoke software, or one that has very few other licensees.

[jetset]

Still no sign of the new software.

Their alternative could be to hive off the casino and rebrand it on new software - that's been done before by the integrity-challenged.

[Jasminebed]

Still no sign of the new software.

Their alternative could be to hive off the casino and rebrand it on new software - that's been done before by the integrity-challenged.

Well, I trust the astute folks here in Meisterland will keep an eye on Heroes and let us know.

I just wish all players would find their way here.

I'd be willing to try a new casino with Galewind as their software provider, since they have shown some real integrity in this case.

[RobWin]

Hopefully Galewind will start screening their licensee's more throughly in the future after this fiasco with Heroes Casino.

[Westland Bowl]

.......I'd be willing to try a new casino with Galewind as their software provider, since they have shown some real integrity in this case.

I presume you are in Canada (Ontario) so you could probably play at Pinnacle Sports: Pinnacle Sports' Casino. They've used the Galewind casino software for over 4 years and they are the top-rated sportsbook out there. You can even test drive the casino for free without having to sign up or fill out anything.

[maxd]

FYI, Westland Bowl PM'd us today to let us know that his money has arrived in his account. It's a done thing!

[maxd]

Also, BB has mentioned that Heroes has received the full Rogue treatment: http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/heroescasino.php

[binary128]

Hello. My name is Chris Colby. I am the President of Galewind Softare Corp.

We have been following this thread for some time now. We decided to refrain from commenting until our action that directly affected Westland Bowl was completely resolved. (Our apologies to "jetset": we did receive your email.)

Now that the GSC check to Westland Bowl has cleared his account, I feel that this is the appropriate time to make a closing statement of sorts and perhaps dispel some of the speculative conclusions which have understandably built up over the past few weeks.

First, I would like to thank Westland Bowl for a statement he made in the very first post of this thread: "This is about the fairest blackjack I've ever played and feels closer to real life Las Vegas tables."

I would also like to thank Eliot Jacobson for his post describing the extensive tests which he performed on the GSC gaming system. His independence provided a level of confidence which any GSC statements could never have achieved.

I would also like to thank "maxd" for adding several very insightful posts to this thread.

And finally, I would like to thank the contributing members of this thread who published positive comments on how GSC has handled this situation. Reading between the lines of incomplete data can be a tricky thing.

I think it is part of human nature for people to analyze any available data, however limited, in order to reach some sort of interim conclusion. The preliminary conclusions of some people become a part of the available data for other people, and their inclusion in subsequent analysis may cause things to go off the path. The interim conclusion which most concerns me is that GSC made some sort of "back room deal" regarding an acknowledgement of defective software, and that this is why GSC, rather than Heroes Casino, paid Westland Bowl.

On this point I wish to be perfectly clear: GSC did not make any "back room deals" regarding an acknowledgement of defective software. To borrow from a previous post, our software is not now, nor has it ever been, "snarfed". We chose to pay Westland Bowl because Heroes Casino had not. Our analysis, and the analysis of several others, concluded that WB won “fair and square”. Someone needed to pay him, and we felt that we had an ultimate responsibility that transcended the filters of any legal obligations.

Heroes Casino made the following statements:

1. ".. our previous provider had faulty software that allowed people to use pattern software to cheat the casino."

2. "The only way that these pattern recognition software would work is if there is either a weak RNG or some other part of the software was faulty."

We feel that the data provided by Eliot Jacobson, as well as his closing statement: "In the opinion of CFG, Galewind Software offers a fair and properly functioning product that shows no bias. The RNG is not weak and the software is not faulty." definitively addresses this issue.

Regarding other statements made by Heroes Casino:

1. "Since the provider failed to open their source code up to testing by a company called TST ...".

In actual fact, when Heroes Casino made this request we immediately replied that we would provide our source code, and our full support, to TSTGlobal for their analysis. After doing so, we did not hear from Heroes Casino again on this matter.

2. ".. they were forced to also pay Tim ****** for the full amount he won in the casino."

At no moment in time were we forced to do anything. The decisions to pay Westland Bowl and to disable the Galewind product at Heroes Casino were made by GSC. We were notified, through CasinoMeister, of the seriousness of this problem on April 15th, made our decisions on April 16th, and executed those decisions on April 17th. These decisions addressed two objectives: 1.) deal with the immediate problem, and 2.) deal with the potential for future problems.

Referring to post #189 from "maxd", the final equation for this situation does have more than one variable. An accurate value for many of these variables can be found in statements made throughout this thread. I hope that this post completes the data necessary to run the calculation. Ultimately, each of you will want to draw your own conclusion.

In closing, I'd like to say that all of us at Galewind Software Corp. are very proud of our product, and we stand behind it 100%. Our people and our software enjoy the respect of such industry participants as Michael Shackleford (the Wizard of Odds), Eliot Jacobson (of Certified Fair Gambling), and Stacy Friedman (of Olympian Gaming). I hope that our actions regarding this issue will remove any concerns about our company which this situation may have created.

Regards, best wishes, and may Lady Luck smile down upon all of you.

Chris Colby

Postscript: Please do not think me rude if I do not respond to any questions which may arise from this post. I think that CasinoMeister has properly identified this thread as resolved, and I for one would just like to move on.