Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[AceMan76]

We take your comments seriously and as such have spent time reviewing our Video Poker game play and also await some feedback on an independent review from a 3rd party.

We have concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games.

We have found, taking several sample sets over different and varying lengths of time, that they yield in our opinion, a non biased distribution of the cards.

Should small sample sets be used to measure this metric, then results will vary as seems to be the case tracing through this thread.

LMAO on that one.

We trust, that we have responded adequately and any doubt in peoples' mind are put to rest.

That one is a laugher too.

Perhaps English Harbour should reconsider the language they use in their initial responses . . . Maybe "we don't claim sh** until the independent 3rd party review is done".

[kengam]

why was there significantly less play on the double up during the period in question versus the days before April 13th.

There are some serious questions that need to be answered mainly what exactly was the error causing the win % to be out of whack?

[kengam]

So if this can happen to the double up part of video poker is it safe to assume it can happen at any given time with any other odds on game?

[spearmaster]

Hey kengam... welcome back!

I think the possible answers will be obvious -

1. Any player who suddenly feels he is having bad luck at doubling will stop soon enough - especially if the results aren't what he/she is used to seeing from the past.

2. Obviously the issue being raised in the forums also contributed to a slowdown in real-mode doubling-down.

I too would like to see exactly what error was discovered... but if it's what I think it is, it is an obvious boo-boo. But better I not speculate - let's see if they're willing to tell us.

[Zoozie]

1.
I am pleased that this obvious 'bug/malfuntion' was admitted by the casino/software provider. And also their willingness to provide logs, this was the best they could do.

2.
I am also pleased with the solution which is refund of money due to 'malfunction' + small compensation bonus. Again this was the best and only solution.

3.
The software provider has taken reponsibility for this 'malfunction'. So the EH group are innocents in this gigantic misfortune.


4.
I am NOT pleased with the missing explanation of how it could happen. I will get into this part.

4a.
WoO does montly reviews so this does explain why he has not noticed anything unusual.
However is this the first time this happens? If it has happened before I have never heard of any compensation for the players or any news flash about it. What is standard procedure for this?

4b.
I need a fully (maybe deeply technical) explation for this bug. I am a software developer (mission critical software) and we have a 'unit-test' which is common practice even in non-critical software development. This 'unit-test' test the software and an error of this magnitude could never exists in new releases.

4c.
I do not believe such a software error could happen in a doubling game with cards by mistake. This would mean the cards are not dealth random, which means the only explanation is in the RNG(but then ALL GAMES was 'rigged'). To introduce such a software bug you would really have to change SEVERAL LINES of code which could not happen by mistake. Also the new code would look fundamentally different from the old 'symmetric' code.

4d.
This 'malfunction' was present in the software for weeks. It is 'interesting' that it
disappears right after the postings on this forum. Was the new release/patch of the
software only to fix this 'malfunction'. If that is the case the EH group could have
informed the player community about this allready when they contacted CM. As I see
it the only other explanation was that it was fixed by 'mistake' again, just as it had
occoured in the first place. This is not likely.

Maybe... there is a simpler explanation, but then the players deserve to hear it.



Zoozie

[boogaooga]

Hey kengam... welcome back!

I think the possible answers will be obvious -

1. Any player who suddenly feels he is having bad luck at doubling will stop soon enough - especially if the results aren't what he/she is used to seeing from the past.

2. Obviously the issue being raised in the forums also contributed to a slowdown in real-mode doubling-down.

I was prepared to make a post about how the data looked suspicious to me, too, but then a thought occurred to me. How many times does a player take a small win and try to double it repeatedly into a bigger win? Often, I imagine. But it's pretty hard to get a string of doubles going when you're losing close to 70% of the time, as was occurring for the last half of April. I suspect that accounts for most of the big slowdown in doubling that occurred once the, ahem, 'bug' manifested itself.

[caruso]

"Bug", I love that one bad.

Was the Casino Bar seconds dealing also due to a "bug"?

Obviously, precise details, which will be acceptable to those players here with programming skills, are needed before any of this is any further on.

[kengam]

Apr 01: wins=1225, losses=1245, ties=177, win ratio=49.6%
Apr 02: wins=763, losses=794, ties=89, win ratio=49%
Apr 03: wins=588, losses=580, ties=74, win ratio=50.34%
Apr 04: wins=1293, losses=1232, ties=156, win ratio=51.21%
Apr 05: wins=951, losses=918, ties=108, win ratio=50.88%
Apr 06: wins=1015, losses=996, ties=119, win ratio=50.47%
Apr 07: wins=950, losses=989, ties=127, win ratio=48.99%
Apr 08: wins=759, losses=735, ties=90, win ratio=50.8%
Apr 09: wins=818, losses=862, ties=111, win ratio=48.69%
Apr 10: wins=1203, losses=1168, ties=152, win ratio=50.74%
Apr 11: wins=529, losses=524, ties=64, win ratio=50.24%
Apr 12: wins=1199, losses=1195, ties=121, win ratio=50.08%
Apr 13: wins=194, losses=266, ties=27, win ratio=42.17%
Apr 14: wins=212, losses=424, ties=43, win ratio=33.33%
Apr 15: wins=284, losses=607, ties=73, win ratio=31.87%
Apr 16: wins=314, losses=602, ties=98, win ratio=34.28%
Apr 17: wins=139, losses=304, ties=45, win ratio=31.38%
Apr 18: wins=143, losses=317, ties=29, win ratio=31.09%
Apr 19: wins=141, losses=307, ties=42, win ratio=31.47%
Apr 20: wins=89, losses=169, ties=28, win ratio=34.5%
Apr 21: wins=134, losses=295, ties=42, win ratio=31.24%
Apr 22: wins=72, losses=128, ties=23, win ratio=36%
Apr 23: wins=52, losses=112, ties=21, win ratio=31.71%
Apr 24: wins=138, losses=322, ties=41, win ratio=30%
Apr 25: wins=66, losses=121, ties=16, win ratio=35.29%
Apr 26: wins=75, losses=126, ties=18, win ratio=37.31%
Apr 27: wins=176, losses=399, ties=47, win ratio=30.61%
Apr 28: wins=93, losses=173, ties=24, win ratio=34.96%
Apr 29: wins=40, losses=81, ties=15, win ratio=33.06%
Apr 30: wins=96, losses=169, ties=25, win ratio=36.23%
May 01: wins=73, losses=86, ties=9, win ratio=45.91%
May 02: wins=95, losses=125, ties=17, win ratio=43.18%
May 03: wins=142, losses=158, ties=20, win ratio=47.33%

Win Ratio = ratio of wins to sum of wins and losses.


Does this list include play for fun mode? The only positive thing we have learned from this is that the fun mode works off the same program as in real mode. I know that is not the case for some other software types. This group better be prepared to open up about what they know because this issue is not likely to go away peacefully.

[thelawnet]

As a professional mathematician, one of the services I provide is evaluation of the logs of online casinos to ensure fair play, though I stopped taking new clients for this service a few years ago. One of my existing clients is Odds On, which provides the software for English Harbour casino among others. On April 29, 2006, a player posted at CasinoMeister.com that he lost more frequently than expected on the double-up feature when playing video poker at English Harbour. This was brought to my attention on May 2 by both Bryan Bailey of CasinoMeister and English Harbor Management. As soon as I found out about this I immediately requested detailed logs from English Harbor in order to analyze them. In preparing the log files for me, Odds On themselves discovered anomalies in the double-up records. When I received the logs and analyzed them I was able to confirm that the double-up on video poker did indeed pay out less than it should have between April 13 and May 2. According to English Harbor problem was caused by a buggy software update on April 13, which was automatically corrected by a subsequent update on May 2.

Readers might understandably wonder how English Harbor can claim that I review their logs for fairness if a problem like this can arise without my knowing about it. The answer is that I do the analysis monthly, and though players noticed the problem in April, I would not normally see the April data until mid May. This underscores the important point that my auditing service can not guarantee that players will get a mathematically fair game at every given instant. I can only attest to the fairness and return percentages in the past.

Although both English Harbor and myself believe that April 13 to May 2 was the only period affected we will be scrutinizing earlier logs to make sure, and will be monitoring future play closely.

The following table shows the results of all double or nothing bets in real play mode from April 1 to May 3.


Apr 01: wins=1225, losses=1245, ties=177, win ratio=49.6%
Apr 02: wins=763, losses=794, ties=89, win ratio=49%
Apr 03: wins=588, losses=580, ties=74, win ratio=50.34%
Apr 04: wins=1293, losses=1232, ties=156, win ratio=51.21%
Apr 05: wins=951, losses=918, ties=108, win ratio=50.88%
Apr 06: wins=1015, losses=996, ties=119, win ratio=50.47%
Apr 07: wins=950, losses=989, ties=127, win ratio=48.99%
Apr 08: wins=759, losses=735, ties=90, win ratio=50.8%
Apr 09: wins=818, losses=862, ties=111, win ratio=48.69%
Apr 10: wins=1203, losses=1168, ties=152, win ratio=50.74%
Apr 11: wins=529, losses=524, ties=64, win ratio=50.24%
Apr 12: wins=1199, losses=1195, ties=121, win ratio=50.08%
Apr 13: wins=194, losses=266, ties=27, win ratio=42.17%
Apr 14: wins=212, losses=424, ties=43, win ratio=33.33%
Apr 15: wins=284, losses=607, ties=73, win ratio=31.87%
Apr 16: wins=314, losses=602, ties=98, win ratio=34.28%
Apr 17: wins=139, losses=304, ties=45, win ratio=31.38%
Apr 18: wins=143, losses=317, ties=29, win ratio=31.09%
Apr 19: wins=141, losses=307, ties=42, win ratio=31.47%
Apr 20: wins=89, losses=169, ties=28, win ratio=34.5%
Apr 21: wins=134, losses=295, ties=42, win ratio=31.24%
Apr 22: wins=72, losses=128, ties=23, win ratio=36%
Apr 23: wins=52, losses=112, ties=21, win ratio=31.71%
Apr 24: wins=138, losses=322, ties=41, win ratio=30%
Apr 25: wins=66, losses=121, ties=16, win ratio=35.29%
Apr 26: wins=75, losses=126, ties=18, win ratio=37.31%
Apr 27: wins=176, losses=399, ties=47, win ratio=30.61%
Apr 28: wins=93, losses=173, ties=24, win ratio=34.96%
Apr 29: wins=40, losses=81, ties=15, win ratio=33.06%
Apr 30: wins=96, losses=169, ties=25, win ratio=36.23%
May 01: wins=73, losses=86, ties=9, win ratio=45.91%
May 02: wins=95, losses=125, ties=17, win ratio=43.18%
May 03: wins=142, losses=158, ties=20, win ratio=47.33%

Win Ratio = ratio of wins to sum of wins and losses.

English Harbor management tells me that they plan to reimburse each and every player who made a double or nothing bet during the period affected with his/her net loss on those bets over affected period. This offer will apply to all casinos using Odds On software. In addition, as a show of their regret for this mistake, they will add 20% to each player's reimbursement.

Michael Shackleford, A.S.A.

WizardOfOdds.com

The explanation from EH is clearly unsound. They claim that there was a bug in the software that was fixed by an automatic update, and previously denied that there was anything wrong with their software.

There is no such thing as an 'automatic' update. Computer code does not write itself, and cannot fix itself either. The code can only have been changed knowingly, and the fact that it was changed almost immediately after te problem was posted here is evidence that they were aware that the code was not fair; despite this they released a statement claiming that the game was fair, even after they had just changed the code that was rigged against the playe .

Although not ideal, it is not the end of the world for a casino to have a software 'problem' that they fix and compensate the player, but having denied that there was a probem having stealth fixed it just before claiming that with a sufficiently large sample the game would be fair, before it became clear that this explanation would not wash, is very difficult for them. Why change your software from biased to fair, and then deny that anything was wrong, pretending that nothing has been changed?

They used the honest mistake defence, which was their best option, but only after dishonestly first changing their software and then telling the world that it was fair, a claim they knew was false because they had just changed it. This fatally undermines their latest statement.

And let's not forget the question of why the game came to be rigged. They claim this was an accident. Given the circumstances it seems a duty that they provide a fuller explanation as to how this 'accidentally' came to pass. WHat was the code check in that led to it supposed to have done? They must give a more plausible explanation, although following the initial denial and sly change, things don't look too good for them.

Regarding the detail of the analysis, isnthis just for the English Harbour casino, or for all casinos? Does it include Hot Pepper and Fire and Ice which appeared tobe fair? How was it that these casinos played fair but EH did not?

[nektar4d]

What an amazing thread!