Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[thelawnet]

Well said, I hear you

I am not one for calling casinos cheaters just because I have lost. Playtech, cryptologic, wagerworks, microgaming, RTG, all these are fair.

But results between me and Andreas that would occur every 18 trillion doubles are proof enough for me.

There is absolutely no way that this game is fair.

This is not a freak sample - this is the result of proper testing

[Linus]

My results - 50 trials, JoB, playmoney:

Win: 18
Lose: 27
Tie: 5

[Simmo!]

This could be a very interesting thread if more testers post. Doesn't look good so far IMO.

[jsp377]

I am waiting for the day when some idiot will come to this forum with 100.000 hands statistics and with about one millon dollars lost. And he will prove finally that some casinos may be rigged. There is no other way to prove it (unfortunately). And until that time we must believe the online casinos are absolutely fair

That is total BS. Let my analogies convince you:

A man comes up to you and tells you he is a professional bowler. You don't believe him, and he bowls for you to prove it. He throws a gutter ball. And then another.
At this point, you should be absolutely certain that he's not a professional bowler, because the likelihood that a professional bowler would throw two consecutive gutter balls is almost nonexistant.
That was two trials.

The 1962 Mets played 160 games, and finished with a record of 40-120. You didn't need 100,000 trials to know that they were one of the worst baseball teams in history; you only needed 160.

WoO needed only 332 trials to prove that CasinoBar was dealing seconds.


The reason some things need 100,000 trials is because they happen so rarely, you need to play massive amounts of hands to get enough trials; or because the difference in EV is so small, you need to play enough hands to kill the variance. Neither is the case in this: the gaps are enormous, and convincing, and damning.

[Aindreas_Daoc]

Well said, I hear you

That is not well said at all.

In many events, statistical proof can be obtained with a relatively small sample size.

For example say I run a coin-flip game. I rig it so that it's not 50/50, but instead its 49.9999/50.0001 in my favor. In this case someone will need a very large sample size to prove that the game is rigged.

Now say I rig it so that it is 20/80 in my favor. Now someone will need a very small sample to prove it's rigged. Something in the order of 50 tries should be more than enough.

In the case of the EH doubling game the statistical proof is overwhelming, especially when you factor in the results of other forum members who tested.

It is flat out impossible that this game represent an honest representation of a doubling game, and any mathematician will agree.

[Simmo!]

From what I've seen so far, the "proof" is looking like it may have some cause for further investigation, but I think you need to move away from the argument about what is/isn't constituting proof and get more results in. Ultimately, proof or not, it will have influence. You're just in danger of deflecting the point of the thread, which would be a shame.

[thelawnet]

From what I've seen so far, the "proof" is looking like it may have some cause for further investigation, but I think you need to move away from the argument about what is/isn't constituting proof and get more results in.

As Andreas says, proof can easily be obtained with a small sample if the cheating is as blatant as it is here.

So far we have

18 wins
27 losses
25 wins
65 losses
40 wins
55 losses
and
84 wins
151 losses

Taken together, that is
167 wins, 298 losses

The chances of that happening from a fair game is 1.5 billion to one

There is not even one sample where wins are close to losses

1.5 billion to one is enough to convince anyone.

[Simmo!]

As Andreas says, proof can easily be obtained with a small sample if the cheating is as blatant as it is here.

So far we have

18 wins
27 losses
25 wins
65 losses
40 wins
55 losses
and
84 wins
151 losses

Taken together, that is
167 wins, 298 losses

The chances of that happening from a fair game is 1.5 billion to one

There is not even one sample where wins are close to losses

1.5 billion to one is enough to convince anyone.

Fair enough. I'll leave you to it then TLN

[Macgyver]

OK, English Harbour flash casino playing 2 line Jacks or Better in play money mode. I only doubled once, even if I won the double.

16 wins
30 losses
4 ties

My contribution ...

[TeddyFSB]

Fixed
You need to add about 100,000 more hands if that to find out if it is fixed....

Just another loser with a conspiracy theory....
When you hit the royal flush, complain to them thats its fixed

Dude, that is so clueless. OP's results are way enough to show it's not a 50-50 game.