Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

I also find it hard to believe that moderators on this forum came up with things like "within the realm of possibility" (sarcastic?) after the chances of these results had been shown to be one in billions and billions.

Not moderator(s) - me.

And yes, it was semi-sarcastic. However, I don't believe in accusations without proof - and that was what we were dealing with in that particular instance.

As you have seen, further posts have indicated that there was indeed something wrong with the game, so that should put any doubts about that to rest.

Now you should know that the moderators here MUST necessarily give equal treatment to all parties (except spammers) and thus I was not, and still not, willing to conclude "cheat" as was done in the instance referred to above.

Non-random - yes. Unfair game - yes. Cheating - not yet.

Let me put the post in question into perspective:

So it'd be fair to say this was no "freak run".


I did say "albeit remotely" Nevertheless, it still exists within the realm of possibility... barely...


No, that is not possible.

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

0.0000000000000019

So the fact that the software was cheating is a fact as anything can be.


See above If you replace the words "cheating is a" with "non-random is as close to" I can't argue.

People do sometimes make errors in coding. But that being said, they're going to have to climb a very tall mountain to make that one stick in this case.

You can see that my response which included the words "realm of possibility" also included the words "albeit remotely" and "barely" and, though not shown here, a grin after "albeit remotely".

Furthermore, in the same post by Caruso, he directly called the software "cheating", implying that a cheat had been put into place, rather than a possible coding bug - and this I was not, and am still not, willing to accept until I hear further from EH.

[ergopro]

I just didn't get the fact that:
Apr 28: wins=93, losses=173, ties=24, win ratio=34.96% From EH stats...
And the lawnet alone played 84 wins, 152 losses,19 ties that day...So am I missing something here? I think I just didn't get it...sorry bout my stupidity...Cause wouldn't that mean that the total of all the rest of their players doubling up would be 9 wins 21 losses 5 ties...Not a huge activity with a casino that big...Hmm, I think I've misunderstood this one =) Damn language barriers

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Gah, this whole thing pisses me off.

Yesterday I had a bad run at BJ on Crypto. Of course these things happen, but before I would be satisfied that it was bad luck. Now this little voice is nagging in my head "What if they pulled an EH?".

This whole thing has really reduced my enjoyment and trust level for all online gambling, not just EH.

[gamemaster]

I'm sure that Bryan, Brian and Ted, plus others here will remember the Gambling Software Systems (GSS) scandal of a few years ago. For those that don't, GSS software was shown to have a "switch" in it that could change the odds of their Video Poker games by making a non-random deal. The online gambling community quickly became aware of this situation and eventually GSS went out of business, although some casinos using that software may have survived by switching to other software platforms.

The evidence presented here shows that Odds On software (or whatever its official name is) contains a similar "switch", be it in the form of a glitch or a deliberate feature. In any event, it obviously caused non-random results to occur and was repaired, which implies that their programmers now know how it happened - which further implies it could happen again.

The gambling public has no choice - in my humble opinion - but to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude towards software that fails to produce random results. If software screws up - for whatever reason - it should be boycotted, period, amen. Sure, glitches can happen to any program, but with all of the other choices out there, why should any producer of casino software be forgiven? Is the online gambler to demonstrate compassion toward those who are clearly shown to have non-random results at any time?

That's not to say English Harbor itself shouldn't survive; perhaps the glitch wasn't their fault and it's true that they've done the "right thing" by making retitution to the players involved. But it seems to me that for them to survive, they must switch software platforms asap and then work to develop their business by relying upon their fine reputation, which has taken years to establish.

Online gamblers control very few aspects of their chosen form of recreation, but choice is one of them and it's the most powerful. We are all now faced with a choice. As for me, I will never advertise or recommend or play at a casino that uses Odds On software from this point forward. I hope many others will join me in this.

GM

[thelawnet]

Ergopro, as far as I know this is for EH only.

Zoozie - we all agreed that this statement was not only premature, but incorrect...

I think we are best off ignoring the first post which was clearly made in haste and poor judgement. The second post, plus the post by the Wizard, are more indicative of the situation and the resolution.

Er, why should we ignore it? It's indicative of a casino that has done something wrong and is now denying it. To me that's definitely something not to ignore, but to have at the front of your mind when deciding whether to play here.

[spearmaster]

Welcome back Gamemaster - been a long time since we've had the pleasure of your company, I hope all is well with you

Yes, of course we all remember GSS

Yes, this clearly is a serious issue which will take some doing to recover from - as I have mentioned, however, I am waiting for a final bit of information before making my own opinion clear.

Ergopro - I thought those numbers were startling as well But I believe they are correct - and you have guessed that activity is not particularly high at the moment.

thelawnet - The only reason I ask that the first post be ignored is because I am quite certain it was made in haste without fully ascertaining the severity of the situation, and also before examination of the logs. Had they made such a post after looking at the logs there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been rogued instantly.

Everyone makes boo-boos sometimes. Sadly, though, this was a big boo-boo. And they also came clean shortly afterwards, apologized for their errors, and made what I believe was a reasonable compensation offer - again, thanks to your efforts. Oh - and BTW, at no time have any of us recommended that you play... LOL... I sure as heck wouldn't be playing right now and naturally I can't expect any of you wanting to play either...

Now I, and I'm sure Meister as well, want to concentrate on finding out exactly what happened without having to delve through all sorts of allegations, slime, arguments, whatever - obviously having to monitor this thread with the great level of activity doesn't make it any easier and takes away from our time doing other things that need doing.

There is only one piece of information missing (that I can think of) and this is what we're trying to obtain. Everything else said in here will have no bearing on the outcome of the investigation until this last piece of information is obtained, if at all.

Again I reiterate, we have everyone's best interests at heart - so please be patient and give us a little breathing room so we can put an end to this once and for all.

[erp1]

I don’t think English Harbour is lying when they say: ”The issue was caused by a bug in the software staging release on the later part of the day April 13 and went unnoticed”. As so often the problem lies in the details.

What I think happened – but that is of course only one among other hypothesis – is that a build-in parameter that makes it possible to manipulate the win/lose ratio was activated by mistake.

How could an assumed parameter function? Again pure speculations: the algorithm that interprets the number delivered by the RNG, could have an option to weight the frequency of winning cards, i.e. there could be a bias in the frequency of the four cards the player choose among. Winning cards could be represented by a narrower range of random numbers than loosing cards.

Whether my hypothesis is correct or not, the following questions need to be answered in details:

1. Which kind of bug in the software staging release can produce an outcome where the win/lose ratio drops from the natural and fair 100% to something in the area of 50% and can go unnoticed for about three weeks and easily be corrected in connection with a maintenance release?

2. If it’s possible to activate such a "bug" by mistake, wouldn’t it then be possible to use the same "bug" as a handle that makes it possible deliberately to set the win/lose ratio to a value below 100%?

3. If the software has build-in such a feature and the feature has been activated by mistake on April 13, how can the software provider/casino vouch for that the feature will never be used deliberately to manipulate the win/lose ratio?

[thelawnet]

thelawnet - The only reason I ask that the first post be ignored is because I am quite certain it was made in haste without fully ascertaining the severity of the situation, and also before examination of the logs. Had they made such a post after looking at the logs there is no doubt in my mind that they would have been rogued instantly.

I can see that in this casino a casino might choose to make a quick denial that there was anything wrong, and that's not necessarily indicative of guilt, merely undue haste and poor behaviour in making a statement not backed by the appropriate actions to confirm its veracity.

HOWEVER, the fact remains that given that the problem entered the software for whatever reason (and of course we cannot say for sure what the intent was), it was identified and removed from the software in the short period between it being publicly proven that English Harbour's video poker was ripping off the players and their statement being issued.

The fact they fixed the code so it played fair, something they MUST have known they had done, and immediately after that code was fixed issued a statement saying nothing was wrong does not look good to me.

Sure you or they can claim that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing: that someone had found out it was broken (and that's assuming we actually believe that somehow the code could accidentally come to shortchange the player in the first place) and quietly fixed it, while at exactly the same time this was being fixed, the PR/legal/fairplay department issued a pseudo-mathematical statement saying there was nothing wrong, while not knowing what the coders were doing.

So for us to accept that the first statement should just be ignored and is not an indicator of malfeasance, we have to accept the following postulates:

1. That English Harbour could cause a game based on a player card being lower than the dealer card to deal lower cards to the player more often than is random, by some coding error (i.e. not deliberately trying to cheat the player)
2. That the error having been introduced into a game that does not appear outwardly to have changed and in theory should not have had its internal code changed at all, someone would go back to that game, check the code, identify the problem, and fix the bug
3. That the bug fix would be scheduled to be deployed in the tiny period between the public proof of foul play and the English Harbour statement, and the even tinier period where English Harbour could have 'reviewed their game play'
4. That having "concluded our review of the game play and randomness for all Video Poker games" English Harbour had no idea that the 'bug' had just been fixed, even though they had just fixed it, and must have had code check in logs, etc.

Sure if you think all that's plausible, but to me given the circumstances, I don't think that it makes sense to take what they say at face value. There is prima facie evidence of cheating, and that should be enough to make any statement coming from them suspicious at best.

And we still haven't heard why this 'bug' didn't seem to affect Hot Pepper and Fire and Ice casinos.

[thelawnet]

I don’t think English Harbour is lying when they say: ”The issue was caused by a bug in the software staging release on the later part of the day April 13 and went unnoticed”. As so often the problem lies in the details.

What I think happened – but that is of course only one among other hypothesis – is that a build-in parameter that makes it possible to manipulate the win/lose ratio was activated by mistake.

How could an assumed parameter function? Again pure speculations: the algorithm that interprets the number delivered by the RNG, could have an option to weight the frequency of winning cards, i.e. there could be a bias in the frequency of the four cards the player choose among. Winning cards could be represented by a narrower range of random numbers than loosing cards.

Whether my hypothesis is correct or not, the following questions need to be answered in details:

1. Which kind of bug in the software staging release can produce an outcome where the win/lose ratio drops from the natural and fair 100% to something in the area of 50% and can go unnoticed for about three weeks and easily be corrected in connection with a maintenance release?

2. If it’s possible to activate such a "bug" by mistake, wouldn’t it then be possible to use the same "bug" as a handle that makes it possible deliberately to set the win/lose ratio to a value below 100%?

3. If the software has build-in such a feature and the feature has been activated by mistake on April 13, how can the software provider/casino vouch for that the feature will never be used deliberately to manipulate the win/lose ratio?

Any software that has a win/loss parameter on a card game is by definition cheating software.

A game of cards can only be programmed fairly by randomly drawing cards and following the rules for that game. Any other means of programming is rigged (cheating).

There can be no 'win/loss parameter' in any fair casino, except possibly slots; for normal casino games the casino win is not determined by the software, but by the rules and the laws of probability.

I don't see why you are interested in the win/loss parameter hypothesis, as it doesn't help English Harbour at all.

[jetset]

I think what erp1 is suggesting is that we need a rational, factual and clear explanation from EH or Odds On or the Wiz...or all of these involved parties...on what went wrong here.

Despite the fact that this has now reached crisis point and must be reverberating around the Internet, it is the weekend which might explain the silence from those involved.

But come tomorrow and a new week, it is going to look mighty strange and not a little damaging if some answers are not forthcoming.

In the meantime it is tempting and even diverting to speculate, but what we really need here is hard information.