Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[gamemaster]

Spear, you really do need to drop this; it's stressing you out and as you've stated many times, there's nothing in it for you other than some satisfaction from discovering the truth of the matter.

I don't believe you will ever discover the truth of what happened, because the only information you're getting is from the people for whom the real truth may be disasterous. Sure, it may have been only a "glitch", but there's also the possibility that it wasn't a glitch and if that's the case, you will obviously never see the evidence of it. English Harbor, et. al. have an interest only in proving that it was an "innocent" mistake because no other explanation gives them even a prayer of surviving this.

You know these people and so you took on a responsibilty that really belongs to them. You're a nice guy that we all trust - with good reason - so naturally, the EH people consider themselves lucky to have you out here taking all of the flack. If they had tried to explain this themselves, very few readers here would have believed them, which is how it works in the online casino business. All of us players want a "disinterested third party" opinion on this stuff and you are it, but the whole story just stinks nobody wants to see the stink rub off on you.

If nothing else, the OddsOn/ EH group have shown they do not have an internal audit system to catch "errors" like this. Now, you may think their hearts are in the right place and they really will tighten up in that area, but the fact remains and it's undeniable - they offered a non-random game to the public and allowed it to run for more than just a day or so. Most of us do not think they will now "behave" themselves, should they ultimately survive this and I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and some of the readers here.

You are willing to forgive and forget - assuming enough evidence can show that this was a simple screwup - but most of us are not. Even if you could show me conclusively that this was caused by nothing more than the accidental loading of some code, it still doesn't change the fact that this code operates as the dreaded, let's-make-the-players-lose "switch" we've all speculated about. If that's the case, can you truly state that it will never be thrown again?

My hypothesis is that such a switch does indeed exist and it was thrown in order to take down some bonus "abusers" and the real glitch was that someone forgot to turn it off. That may be hard to believe, but it's no harder to believe than all this talk about bonus features being loaded by mistake.

As I've said before, the online gambling community stands to gain absolutely nothing by forgiving this group for their mistake. We must adhere to a zero-tolerance policy in order to protect ourselves and I hope you will come to realize this, Ted.

GM

[Vesuvio]

The whole point is that it is very difficult to "plan" sloppy code - and the sloppy code is indicative of something that was not intentionally planned.

It's still sloppy code which happens to be a sloppy version of exactly the sort of card-weighting routine you'd require if you'd chosen to rig VP doubling, which happens to be the element of your casino most under attack from bonus hunters.

Whether they intended to upload it or not when they did or with the exact effect it had is close to beside the point. That this was code intended only for an unprecendented extra bonus game popping up in the middle of doubling requires a further leap of faith on our part - so at least understand our doubts pending further proof.

[soflat]

EH needs to make a public statement, end of story.
If they get slammed with durogatory comments, then they should take their lumps and move on, you guys are taking it for them, and you shouldn't be.
Been in business for 5 years, not online, but I could not even imagine not defending myself/business with some type of statement about these serious accusations.
And if I was audited, I certainly would not expect the auditor to defend my position.

Silence is their best defense because half the people are debating about Spearmaster instead of the original issue, and they never have to get their logfiles examined.

[spearmaster]

It's still sloppy code which happens to be a sloppy version of exactly the sort of card-weighting routine you'd require if you'd chosen to rig VP doubling, which happens to be the element of your casino most under attack from bonus hunters.

Are you a programmer, Vesuvio? I presume not, because you would understand exactly what I just explained a few posts above.

Whether they intended to upload it or not when they did or with the exact effect it had is close to beside the point. That this was code intended only for an unprecendented extra bonus game popping up in the middle of doubling requires a further leap of faith on our part - so at least understand our doubts pending further proof.

Didn't say you couldn't have any doubt.

[Simmo!]

... because half the people are debating about Spearmaster instead of the original issue...

Sad but true

At the end of the day, some people just need everyone to agree with their opinions else they turn on those who don't. So much for debate. Slotster's post is spot on the money.

[Vesuvio]

Are you a programmer, Vesuvio? I presume not, because you would understand exactly what I just explained a few posts above.

No, I'm not (unless basic counts ), but there are enough programmers posting who seem to support the intuition that sloppy code can't be used as a sufficient defence. There are too many conceivable explanations which are in no way more far-fetched than the one we're being asked to accept.

[spearmaster]

Spear, you really do need to drop this; it's stressing you out and as you've stated many times, there's nothing in it for you other than some satisfaction from discovering the truth of the matter.

True, I guess - but I prefer not to leave anything unfinished.

I don't believe you will ever discover the truth of what happened, because the only information you're getting is from the people for whom the real truth may be disasterous. Sure, it may have been only a "glitch", but there's also the possibility that it wasn't a glitch and if that's the case, you will obviously never see the evidence of it. English Harbor, et. al. have an interest only in proving that it was an "innocent" mistake because no other explanation gives them even a prayer of surviving this.

What I have is code. I haven't read the DaVinci Code so I can't draw any comparisons... LOL... but as I said, in my opinion it would be highly unlikely that someone could have intended this code to be a fix. My opinion was not influenced by anything but a reading of the code. Had the code looked strange to me and not reminiscent of a glitch, I would have said so.

You know these people and so you took on a responsibilty that really belongs to them. You're a nice guy that we all trust - with good reason - so naturally, the EH people consider themselves lucky to have you out here taking all of the flack. If they had tried to explain this themselves, very few readers here would have believed them, which is how it works in the online casino business. All of us players want a "disinterested third party" opinion on this stuff and you are it, but the whole story just stinks nobody wants to see the stink rub off on you.

I'm prepared to take the good with the bad. But I also believe that one must always do what's right - and like I said, I don't like to leave anything unfinished. But I appreciate your kind words

If nothing else, the OddsOn/ EH group have shown they do not have an internal audit system to catch "errors" like this. Now, you may think their hearts are in the right place and they really will tighten up in that area, but the fact remains and it's undeniable - they offered a non-random game to the public and allowed it to run for more than just a day or so. Most of us do not think they will now "behave" themselves, should they ultimately survive this and I suppose that's the biggest difference between you and some of the readers here.

My impression is that they do have an audit system but that it failed - miserably, I might add. And yes, I may have a bit more faith than some of the other readers here - but that also comes from long experience in the industry.

You are willing to forgive and forget - assuming enough evidence can show that this was a simple screwup - but most of us are not. Even if you could show me conclusively that this was caused by nothing more than the accidental loading of some code, it still doesn't change the fact that this code operates as the dreaded, let's-make-the-players-lose "switch" we've all speculated about. If that's the case, can you truly state that it will never be thrown again?

I didn't say forgive and forget - I did say get to the bottom of this issue. Once I have as much information out there as I can manage from fact and from "educated" opinion, I still expect everyone to make up their own minds as to what happened, though of course I will give my own opinion as well.

I hear you on the switch thing - heck, even I wonder sometimes if a switch has been thrown - but this code really does not look like a switch, and even if it were, it is practically the most idiotic switch one could make since it would be so blatantly obvious that there was a problem.

My hypothesis is that such a switch does indeed exist and it was thrown in order to take down some bonus "abusers" and the real glitch was that someone forgot to turn it off. That may be hard to believe, but it's no harder to believe than all this talk about bonus features being loaded by mistake.

My reading of the code says otherwise... but if you've got it set in your mind that there was a switch, there isn't a whole lot I can say that will cause you to change your opinion.

As I've said before, the online gambling community stands to gain absolutely nothing by forgiving this group for their mistake. We must adhere to a zero-tolerance policy in order to protect ourselves and I hope you will come to realize this, Ted.

I think this needs to be an individual choice - I do not presume to make the choice for everyone in this situation. And I disagree - if we can show that we are willing to be fair - then perhaps the casinos can be convinced to take less of a hardball attitude towards all players, bonus hunters or otherwise.

As I have said elsewhere, I respect your opinion, but I may not always agree with it. In this case, rather than disagreeing with you (except for the part about nothing to gain), I'd prefer to finish what I'm doing and lay it out and let everyone make their own decision as to what they will do.

I hope you understand where I am coming from.

[spearmaster]

No, I'm not (unless basic counts ), but there are enough programmers posting who seem to support the intuition that sloppy code can't be used as a sufficient defence. There are too many conceivable explanations which are in no way more far-fetched than the one we're being asked to accept.

Believe it or not, I started with BASIC on mainframes... and was going to write a book on Turbo BASIC by Borland for Que but had to call it off when I moved to Hong Kong And I discovered the first bug which was to result in a major update... by running a QBASIC function of all things Sadly, Turbo Basic never made it beyond version 2...

Keep in mind that I'm offering an opinion here, not stating it as fact. I'd like to challenge any of you programmers out there to plan sloppy code and then write it in such a manner that it is convincing enough to look like test code - through hundreds of lines, numerous modules and errors - and still make it output a final result.

Oh yeah - and do it in a day, that's all the advance warning they had that I was going to look at code of any sort, let alone the actual code modules.

[spearmaster]

By the way, on the subject of zero tolerance - in a perfect world this would be brilliant. I would support this concept except for one thing - it's impossible to achieve.

With zero tolerance, you would not have any of the software or scripts that we use today. Microsoft Windows is probably the buggiest software on Earth. vBulletin - the software which powers this forum - is on version 3.5. The CPUs and other chips we have in our computers are not bug-proof. Even your mobile phone has bugs.

How can we demand zero tolerance for anything which relies on software when the software that runs the software that programs the software itself is not bug-proof?

[mitch]

Cheers Spear

I think you are are doing a great job on this issue. I have a fairly clear picture of what has gone on here thanks to your efforts.

Of course it's not possible to be 100% certain about events, Odds On could be supplying you with duff code in support of a convoluted story.

However, I am not going to go with the conspiracy theory here.

I prefer the risk reward theory. ie Why would Odds On risk a huge proportion of their business on a scam that would only give them a small rise in their profits?

I can't convince myself that they are so stupid!

Perhaps they are, and this cannot ever be proved 100%, however I will go with the opinion of yourself and the Meister on this issue. You have met the people involved here and you are experienced enough to see through any BS.

I go back to my earlier post as nobody ever commented on the main premise in it. i.e. Why risk so much (probably their whole business) for so little?

It's the risk reward theory. If I offered you £1000 on a 10-1 odds on bet in your favour would you take it? If I did happen to win though you would have to give me everything you owned, money, property, cars etc. Now would you would take it?

You would have to be a simpleton to do so as the risk far outweighs the reward.

The Casino owners and Odds on are surely not that stupid. They are not some penny ante outfit with little to lose, as other cheating Casinos have been, they are a major business with millions at stake.

This after all was not a sophisticated scam and was bound to be discovered if it ran for any length of time. And if it was only intended to be run for a short time it makes the risk reward even more ridiculous!

No I am on the side of genuine cockup.

That said however, I would never risk my money with such a sloppy operater when there are so many good guys out there. I think this incident will be a knife to the heart of the current owners and I can see no redemption without a takeover of some sort.

I must also say that they must be reading this forum (the most respected on the planet) and the way they have left Spear to hang out to dry without any comment is a disgrace IMO.

Mitch