Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

**Vesuvio** · 15th May 2006, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by AceMan76

There is irrefutable mathematical evidence that EH offered an unfair game. IMO, the burden has now shifted to EH to offer credible and compelling evidence that they are a fair company. For most people, that would include disclosure of past game logs. From a customer service POV, treating your customers like "plaintiffs" is ridiculous.

If the "truth" is the real goal here, then why not full disclosure of the past three years of VP game logs?

Exactly. EH need to pull out all the strings and then some to convince players they're fair. I'm personally willing to trust Spearmaster and others to provide a fair assessment of the code given to them, but the best case scenario for EH is that it'll be seen as "conceivable" that they could have accidentally given themselves an advantage. The circumstantial evidence (that this happened in a part of a game exploited mainly by bonus hunters - where it would be hard to prove & those involved might be unwilling to go public anyway) coupled with the initial statement from the casino isn't going to go away. Even if we all accepted it was an error there's the question of how we should treat a casino that runs software so faulty it gives them a massive advantage - and they don't have any systems in place to pick that up until a player spots it weeks later. I've got a lot of sympathy with the zero-tolerance views on casino errors expressed earlier in this thread.

EH should be more than willing to provide the old VP logs to try and bolster their reputation. Unless of course they do have something to hide.

**wizard** · 15th May 2006, 11:46 PM

After I made a statement about the software bug affecting the double-up feature at Odds On (the name of the software used by several casinos, including the English Harbour) casinos, players wanted to know how the bug occurred. This is an addendum to my statement to answer that question.

When players started asking for details about the bug I asked on Odds On for a copy of the source code, and they sent it to me immediately. The code is at a higher level than I write myself and Odds On made their programmer available to answer my questions in deciphering it. The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

In slot machine bonus rounds the prizes are sometimes drawn from a pool, and the smaller prizes have a greater probability of being chosen than the larger ones. This is achieved by associating each prize with a weighting factor and is standard in bonus game designs. When married to the video poker game, the result was that the player had a greater probability of drawing the smaller cards. As I've mentioned before, this problem was automatically corrected in the software on May 2.

Based on what on Odds On has shared with me, their complete cooperation, and my six-year open and honest relationship with them, it is my firm opinion that indeed the problem was an accidental human error.

I absolutely do not believe that on Odds On would attempt to cheat their players in such a blatant manner, since it would be so quickly and easily discovered -- which is exactly what happened in this case. No professional casino willingly goes down that road. Besides the risk to their reputation, there is also the money they're out by paying a consolation prize to affected players on top of reimbursing their losses.

**Vesuvio** · 16th May 2006, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by wizard

The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

I guess the obvious question is why we should believe they didn't intentionally move over to this "slots" bonus routine? That it would be a stupid move as they could be found out isn't a sufficient reason.

p.s. at least a casino's desire to change a game with no house edge to a "more exciting" one with a huge house edge rings true

**spearmaster** · 16th May 2006, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Vesuvio

I guess the obvious question is why we should believe they didn't intentionally move over to this "slots" bonus routine? That it would be a stupid move as they could be found out isn't a sufficient reason.

Because it wasn't ready. Parts of the subroutine were missing, which resulted in invalid values being returned - but the key point is that, in this new code, one particular line was poorly coded and had a direct impact on the results.

I'm still waiting for a bit of information but I think you can see that the Wiz has also already seen the code and I presume has done a similar analysis.

edit ->

I've got a lot of sympathy with the zero-tolerance views on casino errors expressed earlier in this thread.

With all due respect, your sympathy is misplaced. Any other casino I know, online or off, would have invoked the "malfunction voids all plays" clause.

**Vesuvio** · 16th May 2006, 12:13 AM

How was the new bonus game intended to work? If it was planned to use cards I'd have thought weighting should be out of the question - otherwise players would be deceived. Or were there supposed to be some weighted events that somehow got translated into card values, though I'm not quite clear on how that could happen

I'm not dismissing your assessment of the code provided but just trying to get a clearer idea of what's suppposed to have happened.

**spearmaster** · 16th May 2006, 12:22 AM

I had the very same question... LOL...

I will explain this when I have all the information I need.

**sirius** · 16th May 2006, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by wizard

After I made a statement about the software bug affecting the double-up feature at Odds On (the name of the software used by several casinos, including the English Harbour) casinos, players wanted to know how the bug occurred. This is an addendum to my statement to answer that question.

When players started asking for details about the bug I asked on Odds On for a copy of the source code, and they sent it to me immediately. The code is at a higher level than I write myself and Odds On made their programmer available to answer my questions in deciphering it. The problem was that the video poker double up bonus round was calling a second bonus routine that was still under development. This bonus routine is very similar to the bonus games found in their slot machines.

In slot machine bonus rounds the prizes are sometimes drawn from a pool, and the smaller prizes have a greater probability of being chosen than the larger ones. This is achieved by associating each prize with a weighting factor and is standard in bonus game designs. When married to the video poker game, the result was that the player had a greater probability of drawing the smaller cards. As I've mentioned before, this problem was automatically corrected in the software on May 2.

Based on what on Odds On has shared with me, their complete cooperation, and my six-year open and honest relationship with them, it is my firm opinion that indeed the problem was an accidental human error.

I absolutely do not believe that on Odds On would attempt to cheat their players in such a blatant manner, since it would be so quickly and easily discovered -- which is exactly what happened in this case. No professional casino willingly goes down that road. Besides the risk to their reputation, there is also the money they're out by paying a consolation prize to affected players on top of reimbursing their losses.

The software was updated on 2nd May but why were the results for 1st May not unfair? It was a few thousand to one chance of it using the unfair code then- the win/lose ratio was almost even on May 1st.

Also, you don't say when they actually sent you the code, just that they sent it to you 'immediately' when you asked them. Instead of using that word it would be more helpful to know when they actually sent it to you. Don't you think it strange that they could introduce this code accidentally? I have no way of knowing for sure but it's highly improbable and nonsensical.

You are seriously saying that they accidentally introduced some code for a bonus game (that didn't exist) that somehow worked without errors and made the smaller cards more likely to be chosen? It looks like deliberate cheating to me and they used that method for it. If some other software used this method to cheat, would you think it was accidental? I don't think any unbiased person would. It would just be a good way to program the cheating. If they wanted to cheat they would code it in a similar way. I have programmed card based games before (BJ simulator) so have enough knowledge about it.

**spearmaster** · 16th May 2006, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by sirius

You are seriously saying that they accidentally introduced some code for a bonus game (that didn't exist) that somehow worked without errors and made the smaller cards more likely to be chosen? It looks like deliberate cheating to me and they used that method for it. If some other software used this method to cheat, would you think it was accidental? I don't think any unbiased person would. It would just be a good way to program the cheating. If they wanted to cheat they would code it in a similar way. I have programmed card based games before (BJ simulator) so have enough knowledge about it.

Without having seen the actual code you would not be in any position to judge whether said code was deliberately or accidentally modified to output the result, nor to judge whether the persons examining the code were biased or not.

**gamemaster** · 16th May 2006, 02:29 AM

While I have great respect for both Spearmaster and the Wizard of Odds and have no doubt whatsoever about the honesty of either, the online gambling community stands to gain very little, if anything, by "forgiving" English Harbor Casino now that the events that created the under-payment of the games in question has been explained.

First and foremost, it's obvious that this operation does not have a day-to-day audit function to alert the casino personnel that a game is malfunctioning. The fact that it was malfunctioning in favor of the casino is a byproduct that raises the eyebrows of most observers and one must wonder how long a malfunction in favor of the players would have gone unchecked. But I'll keep my comments confined to the original premise: their game was not working correctly and they didn't know it!

Secondly, the "knee jerk" reaction to the charges were typical casino arrogance. Nothing's wrong, they said. As the evidence that something was indeed wrong piled up, they went into full damage-control mode, which is to be expected of course. After all, did they really have any choice at that point? Spearmaster commented in a post here:

"With all due respect, your sympathy is misplaced. Any other casino I know, online or off, would have invoked the 'malfunction voids all plays' clause."

Sure, any casino that wanted to go out of business in a week.

He evidently does not understand that state regulation for brick-and-mortar casinos - even those in Las Vegas - provides an "ombudsman" to protect the public. As for online casinos, the ombudsman is fine, open Websites like this. In other words, the online community must be the regulators of the casinos and do so through the power of choice.

As for the ultimate explanation of the problem - a software malfunction - I can accept that. I don't necessarily believe it, but I'll accept it; stuff happens. But what kind of organization allows it to happen for two weeks?

Can we all agree that it's either an incompetent organization or an organization that had larceny in its corporate heart? One of the two must fit, but perhaps there's a third explanation I'm unaware of.

So, what are the arguments in favor of the online gaming community forgiving English Harbor Casino? Well, they have apparently done a good job up to this point and that's worth something. They offer good games? Well, not really - the best Video Poker they have is full-pay Jacks or Better (99.54%), but let's be honest here, full-pay Jacks games are all over the 'Net. How about their Blackjack? I'll quote the Wizard of Odds from his review of OddsOn software: "The house edge under these rules is 0.73%, the highest I have seen on the Internet." Okay, no help there.

Somebody might say that we need good casinos with "proven" track records and I'll agree. But the loss of English Harbor Casino won't make even a ripple in the pond. Of course The Wizard of Odds has reason to encourage the forgiveness; it's a paying customer and, while I definitely believe Michael would not let a few $$$ tarnish his outstanding reputation for honesty and feels this was just a software "glitch", the fact remains - he has a vested interest in seeing it survive.

Does Spearmaster have a vested interest in seeing English Harbor Casino survive? I seriously doubt it, but he's a good and fair person that, it seems to me, would rather take a neutral path in this matter, which is certainly his right.

I am not willing to take a neutral stance on this matter, because if we do, the message thread here will gradually sink to the bottom and that old adage of the politicians will kick in: "The public's memory is short."

If the online gambling community allows English Harbor Casino to survive as it is now, we're sending a message to every casino operator that it's okay to have a game malfunction so long as you pay the losers even after said malfunction is discovered - not by you - but by your customers.

Is that really the message we want to come from the online gambling community? That we can forgive a malfunction that had to be discovered by the players?

Or do we want to send the same type of message they send to what the casinos term bonus "abusers" - be they abusers or not: "You messed up once, so you're out of here."

I think that's the message we need to send.

Boycott any casino that uses OddsOn software.

GM