Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

This just in from English Harbour:
....await some feedback on an independent review from a 3rd party.

No need for that. Unless they also send him back in time. Utterly BS.

What is needed a complete software review so we can be sure they can not cheat even if they wanted to.
I would not be surprised if the software has this double (50%) parameter as a standard parameter that can be configured to whatever
they want and when they want. This parameter has to be somewhere in the software. Hardcoded or configurable? The problem is that very few casinos use the software and would know this. If this is the case it could be proven very fast just by viewing the configuration utilities for the software.

Zoozie

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by thelawnet

...So not only are they cheating crooks, they are cheating lying crooks as well.

Please thelawnet - let's keep the derogatory comments to yourself. Thanks!

[jetset]

Do I understand this response correctly? Are EH in effect saying that these horrific results garnered by several players was the equivalent of a bad streak, but that over a large enough sample the doubling feature would come out at 50/50?

How large a sample? That doesn't sound like a very good bet for gamblers expecting 50/50 odds to me.

I think that I'll wait to hear what the Wiz has to say about this.

[Simmo!]

Originally Posted by jetset

I think that I'll wait to hear what the Wiz has to say about this.

Me too. The crux of the matter for me is: can the casino affect/alter/massage the odds on doubling, or is it a fixed standard across the softare at all licencees.

[Zoozie]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

This just in from English Harbour:
In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. .

Actually #wins/#losses SHOULD converge to 100%!!!
What we saw was actually that it did converge to something 50%!



Zoozie

[soflat]

I WAS giving them the benefit of the doubt regarding the game - not that it was fair, but maybe they had a programming error or something.

But if they are going to cover it up, that would be dishonest. Not a trait gamblers look for in an online casino - trust is everything.

Several posters even suggested ways the operator could handle the situation.

We now need to know if/why this software is riggable by the operator.

[caruso]

I have to admit, it could've been a "glitch" until this response.

Originally Posted by thelawnet

The worst possible choice for them. It's proof that they were cheating deliberately - they could have claimed a software error accidentaly added, but no they deny that the game was unfair and add some bullshit about the distrinution converging on 50% over time

Exactly. If it were a genuine "glitch" they would know about it, been able to explain it and then take the necessary remedial action. What they've done is denied it. This was a terrible mistake because the denial is pointless. These results could never, NEVER result from a fair game. They have failed to grasp this here:

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.

Incorrect. You do not need a large sample to prove this. The size required is dependent on the conjecture being tested. Ten hands is enough to prove cheating / non-randomness if those ten hands are, for example, ten consecutive blackjacks, or ten fully blank draws on 10-line video poker.

English Harbour simply do not understand this, and think they can wing on the limited sample size.

Regarding "crooks" and "cheaters": I suppose it's down to your interpretation. I sell you a Ferrari, at a Ferrari price, without telling you it has a Skoda engine. Does that make me a cheat / crook?

'Fraid it does.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister
In theory, the number of Wins versus the number of losses and (excluding ties) will converge to 50% over a sample set that is large enough. Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.

Just for the record, I didn't say that. This was a communication given to me by the casino.

Back to the use of language, if you want to keep this thread on track then lose the baggage.

[spearmaster]

That was a pretty poor explanation from EH management. These "theoretically deterministic varying chances" just don't add up... pun fully intended.

[tencardcharlie]

Originally Posted by spearmaster

"theoretically deterministic varying chances"

Yes, what the heck does that mean?

Sounds like some jibrish from a roulette system manual.