Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[erp1]

But do I question Spear's motives or integrity? Absolutely, unequivocally no. He has never been afraid to call a spade a spade, he's probably one of the most direct and "no bullshit" type people you will ever run across on any forum.

Well said. Personally I'm convinced that Spearmaster does his best to reveal what happened, accepting "no bullshit" neither from the Odds On/ΕΗ nor from hotheads.

How often is a third party even shown or given access to a casino's programming code? If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say never. I think that proves at least to some degree that the casino/software provider is hoping for some sort of resolution to put this matter to rest, that they are not trying to hide anything so to speak.

Did they have any other options?
Option 1: Go the line out and deny everything. Nobody would trust them and they would just have lost everything.
Option 2: Admit and limit the damage. But the situation is so bad that they would not be able to get their message through.

I don't think they had any other realistic option than silence, unconditional surrender and acceptance of demands from observers with insight and a balanced view.

Thanks to Spearmaster we have the possibility to get insight and a balanced view of the whole affair.

I started with an open mind to accept reasonably explanations of a deplorable but legitimate bug.

But the more that is revealed the less I'm able to characterize the bug as a deplorable but legitimate bug.

[ergopro]

Isn't OddsOn owned and operated by EH these days or am I totally wrong?

[tennis_balls]

and they accepted those consequences and of course made restitution above and beyond what should have been required.

i guess we'll just agree to disagree on this matter. i don't think 120% to affected players is even in the ballpark of making restitution. this is the online casino equivalent of a surgeon who sews up the patient with a scalpel inside.

"mistakes were made" is only generally acceptable if you're the leader of the free world by a fraudulent vote count

[spearmaster]

i guess we'll just agree to disagree on this matter. i don't think 120% to affected players is even in the ballpark of making restitution. this is the online casino equivalent of a surgeon who sews up the patient with a scalpel inside.

"mistakes were made" is only generally acceptable if you're the leader of the free world by a fraudulent vote count

The alternative would have been no restitution, or perhaps long dragged-out negotiations as evidenced in some other threads.

I believe EH deserves a little credit for its actions, especially compared to other operations. They stepped up to the plate and paid, opened their code up to outside parties for examination, and did this as soon as it was clear that there was a problem with the code.

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

[soflat]

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

I think they have been treated fairly.

A lot of posters have been reading this thread from the start and have examined all of the evidence. If they don't agree with you, I don't see why you are ashamed of the community for that. In fact it is offensive that you consider it a poor example.

Personally, I respect the work you have done and don't question your intentions. I simply disagree with you. And I haven't seen anything in this whole thread to be ashamed of.

[tony_k]

I've read Mr. Spearmaster's post #395 carefully.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/102865-post395.html

What was actually happening was that the winning hand would get another "normal" deal without choice. It is exaclty as same as "second dealing" as a result. That's why win/lose ratio is 1:2.

My figure is here (#224), win/tie/lose = 0.29586/0.11243/0.59172 assuming only winnig hand would get second dealing.

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/100798-post224.html

Somebody said my figure was totally incorrect but I still stand for my figure.

[kengam]

The alternative would have been no restitution, or perhaps long dragged-out negotiations as evidenced in some other threads.

I believe EH deserves a little credit for its actions, especially compared to other operations. They stepped up to the plate and paid, opened their code up to outside parties for examination, and did this as soon as it was clear that there was a problem with the code.

The example all of you are setting will result, for sure, in the inevitability that NO future operator will ever release their code for scrutiny, admit problems with the code, or make restitution for a bug, deliberate or not. They will simply deny it because they will not get a fair hearing.

If this is the way you think it should be, then so be it. It is a real shame that a few players will set such a poor example for the community at large.

So basically what you are saying is accept your explanation and forgive them for their mistake. The few players who don't are ruining any chance of cooperation from other casinos who are caught cheating. This is utterly rediculous. About that restitution. Are you saying that EVERYONE who played the double up game at ANY Odds On joint during the period in question has been refunded 120%? I can assure you that the answer to that is no.

It is not my intent to bash your (Spear) integrity. I appreciate that you have taken it upon yourself to investigate this. I do not appreciate the notion that agreeing with what you believe to have happened is for the good of the industry. We are not sheep. I have personally lost a fortune on that double up game and will continue to insist that it was in cheat mode on other occasions before April.

I am insulted that English Harbour is relying on your testimony. I am insulted that they are beyond giving us an explanation of their own. I am insulted that they are leading you and us to believe that everyone effected by the cheating code was reimbursed 120%.

[spearmaster]

I'm not saying accept their explanation at all. I'm saying that you need to consider all of the evidence before making a decision - but at least give them credit for coming forward and allowing me to examine the code, plus making restitution to the players quickly - something I'm sure you will agree is not usually the case with other operations.

They admitted their errors - they made a dumb statement which they regret. They have cooperated fully with me, whereas with operations it's worse than pulling teeth.

That's about all anyone can ask at this stage - when I finally get done with this explanation you are all free to draw your own conclusions - and that is the best that can be expected of you.

I just don't think it's awfully fair to be so hard on them when other operations have been far less cooperative, that's all.

[spearmaster]

Are you saying that EVERYONE who played the double up game at ANY Odds On joint during the period in question has been refunded 120%? I can assure you that the answer to that is no.

Missed the quote... LOL...

If EH have not already refunded 120% for the error then I will obviously retract my statement. If anyone here who played during that period of time did NOT get paid, by all means let me know - they promised that they would pay and I would like to know if this is not the case.

[derelict]

Spearmaster, I believe you've done a great job explaining the material you've been provided, but I disagree with your position. In my opinion, there are only two things that a casino absolutely must do, and absolutely must be blacklisted for not doing. That is to have fair games, and pay out winnings. If I understand correctly, even you admit that they intended to deal a card game not based on a random selection from the deck. It may be too soon for Casinomeister to judge them but not for me.

There's already an issue of trust simply from the fact that it would be so easy to cheat. This is a case where players caught the house with their hand in the cookie jar and I think certain people are far too eager to write this off as an isolated incident with virtually no effects beyond what took place around the exact time and place where it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt that it did in fact happen.

When I lose money, until recently I wrote it off as bad luck. To me, this incident has raised suspicions of other software providers and devalued the merit of certifying authorities as a whole. In the future I'll be making spreadsheets and I would encourage others to do the same.