Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

**bb1webs** · 6th May 2006, 05:58 AM

CM and the rest of you portal owners; you really should drop all Odds-On casinos without any delay.

just for the record; I haven't listed them since ... nearly since they changed software from being MGS. thats a long time ago.

***********

freakin:

you caught me.

I had decided I was being too quick on the draw and was going to wait to post that later on after more people had weighed in with more knowledge than myself: but as my luck would have it .... lol.

**sirius** · 6th May 2006, 06:00 AM

Michael Shackleford is able to program well enough to know that their explanation is implausible at the best of times but especially given the circumstances of the situation. I also doubt his audits normally covered the double up feature at all despite the implication otherwise. The results data sent to be audited could also easily be fabricated by the software provider in any case.

The software provider really needs a more techinical explanation for the error as it seems unlikely to be possible without deliberate rigging.

**erp1** · 6th May 2006, 10:19 AM

If the software has a feature that makes it possible to define the target of the win/lose ratio then I can understand that it�s possible by mistake to change the parameter from a neutral and fair value of 100% to a not neutral and not fair value of 50%.

If a not neutral and not fair value of such a parameter is set to 50% at English Harbour in the period April 13 to May 2, I am too able to understand way the result in that period is in imbalance as reported in the logs for that period.

What I don�t understand is why the software should have such a feature unless the assumed parameter is a handle to produce not fair and not random results.

**tony_k** · 6th May 2006, 04:10 PM

I was thinking how it could happen. Let's say they do "second deal". I mean if player has a winning hand, the house will deal a "second card" as a replacement. It's much easier than manipulating RNG.

normal win/tie/lose ratio is 0.46154/0.07692/0.46154.
I figured win/tie/lose ratio on "second deal" as 0.29586/0.11243/059172.
win/lose ratio is almost 1:2 and tie ratio is bigger than normal under this story.

It's an only assumption but it is pretty much fitted to sample provided by house, isn't it?

**thelawnet** · 6th May 2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by erp1

If the software has a feature that makes it possible to define the target of the win/lose ratio then I can understand that it�s possible by mistake to change the parameter from a neutral and fair value of 100% to a not neutral and not fair value of 50%.

If a not neutral and not fair value of such a parameter is set to 50% at English Harbour in the period April 13 to May 2, I am too able to understand way the result in that period is in imbalance as reported in the logs for that period.

What I don�t understand is why the software should have such a feature unless the assumed parameter is a handle to produce not fair and not random results.

There shouldn't be any parameter. If the game was set so that the player wins half the time and the dealer wins half the time then it would make sense, but the game is based on drawing cards at random. There was no problem with whether the software thought the card was higher or lower. The problem was the player card was lower than the dealer card far more often than is possible by chance. This cannot be caused by a parameter - you are not doing

if RandomNumber Is Less Than 50%, but accidentally typing in Less than 33% or something
Then Player Wins
Otherwise Dealer Wins

You are drawing five cards at random, and the cards speak for themselves

**dovmin** · 7th May 2006, 02:45 PM

They used to have one line jacks or better as a game that counts towards the wagering now I see it is not

I wonder why

**paul02085** · 7th May 2006, 03:25 PM

IMO English Harbor and all Odds On casinos should be rogued. There is no way i believe this was a mistake. Only mistake was they got caught.

Doesnt this just show how easy it is for online sites to rip people off??? Wow.

PS- Thelawnet, kudos for exposing this.

**ergopro** · 7th May 2006, 05:38 PM

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

Sorry to ask a stupid question but were the stats at page 17 all of the double or nothing bets made at EH casinos that day?
Again, sorry for a stupid question...

**caruso** · 7th May 2006, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by dovmin

They used to have one line jacks or better as a game that counts towards the wagering now I see it is not

LMAO.

If that's correct, the circumstatial evidence is now completely overwhelming. It's far too much of a coincidence that they just happened to pull that game from their promos now it's had the fix removed. They only allowed JOB while the unbeatable fix was in. Now it's gone, they've pulled the game that no longer represents a guaranteed profit.

Everything now adds up to a deliberate fix.

**spearmaster** · 7th May 2006, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by caruso

LMAO.

If that's correct, the circumstatial evidence is now completely overwhelming. It's far too much of a coincidence that they just happened to pull that game from their promos now it's had the fix removed. They only allowed JOB while the unbeatable fix was in. Now it's gone, they've pulled the game that no longer represents a guaranteed profit.

Everything now adds up to a deliberate fix.

I'm tired of this horseshit.

Circumstantial evidence, overwhelming or not, is still circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, no one has substantiated WHEN JoB was removed from being allowed for qualifying, yet all of a sudden you decide this is key evidence. And you are calling what happened a fix, again without any proof.

I hope it's warm where you are, Caruso, because you've just bought a one-week ticket. I'm quite certain you were angling for this to see how far you could go - well, you just found out.