Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[kengam]

I wasn't exactly right but I was close enough - I surmised that the problem could possibly have occurred through a mismatch of arrays, or the incorrect array being written to. It is the second one that appears to have occurred.

wouldn't an incorrect array return an error? It is very hard to fathom this bug not causing the program to crash. There were no indications that anything was erroneous if you tried it out during the time in question. Not a slight pause, nothing out of the ordinary. If the code was so sloppily written you would think it wouldn't be able to integrate itself into the game without causing fatal errors.

[spearmaster]

wouldn't an incorrect array return an error?

Not unless the array didn't exist. Unless the array had strict bounds and the particular element being written to exceeded these bounds, the array would simply have been overwritten.

It is very hard to fathom this bug not causing the program to crash. There were no indications that anything was erroneous if you tried it out during the time in question. Not a slight pause, nothing out of the ordinary. If the code was so sloppily written you would think it wouldn't be able to integrate itself into the game without causing fatal errors.

Strangely enough, array mismatches don't cause fatal errors unless as described above.

It was a very unfortunate "mismatch" in that both arrays were of exactly the same type and fell within similar bounds. This is also the worst nightmare that programmers experience as they are very difficult to detect if the change is slight or unmonitored or untested.

Like I said, though, I can easily see myself making that mistake - in fact, it happens to me frequently when I am in a "groove" and programming frantically before I forget what the hell it was I was trying to do It is, however, definitely not something I would think of if I had anything to hide.

[thelawnet]

To be honest, I didn't ask this question. I also haven't asked either EH or Wiz how they determined the date, my assumption is that it was updated sometime on the 1st and thus not all results would have been normal - but that from the 2nd onwards all results should have been normal.

The question is why they had arranged for the code to be fixed instead of shutting it down straight away. They said there was a scheduled update - so the imrpession that they were trying to switch the game back to fair as a a way of 'burying the evidence', because the game was changed immediately after it was posted on here - was in their view wrong because it was scheduled.

But why would they schedule it and not shut it down immediately?

[spearmaster]

The question is why they had arranged for the code to be fixed instead of shutting it down straight away. They said there was a scheduled update - so the imrpession that they were trying to switch the game back to fair as a a way of 'burying the evidence', because the game was changed immediately after it was posted on here - was in their view wrong because it was scheduled.

But why would they schedule it and not shut it down immediately?

Had it been me, I would have shut it down and immediately re-enabled it after finding out and fixing whatever was wrong.

However, I believe they were waiting for Wiz to come back with his analysis before doing anything as they originally and mistakenly thought that there was nothing wrong as evidenced by their first statement. I haven't checked the timeframe on that but I suspect it would have been very close.

[thelawnet]

Had it been me, I would have shut it down and immediately re-enabled it after finding out and fixing whatever was wrong.

However, I believe they were waiting for Wiz to come back with his analysis before doing anything as they originally and mistakenly thought that there was nothing wrong as evidenced by their first statement. I haven't checked the timeframe on that but I suspect it would have been very close.

Again, the problem is that the code had already been switched shortly before the first statement, as verified by testing at the time.

It's pretty unbelievable that they could switch this code out and at the same time as they did this say 'No, definitely nothing wrong with our code', even though they had just fixed it.

[spearmaster]

I should shut up before I reread this long ass thread... LOL...

The first statement came well after the software update apparently fixed things. Needless to say the statement was blatantly incorrect - so I will try and determine exactly what happened and on what timeframe. I stand corrected yet again

[120sam]

3. The logs I presume you are referring to are those of the last 2-3 years based on an unsubstantiated claim from someone who himself is not willing to provide any proof. If he gives us good reason then of course we should expect to see the logs.

Can we get away from the Kengam thing? The fact that the game wasn't reliable for a period in 2006 is reason enough for concerned players to want the logs for earlier years to be checked. That is the "good reason". EH should be bending over backwards to reassure concerned players.

They then opined that they would like to see this resolved as soon as possible, as it was understandably affecting their business.

I'll bet they would. They can step up to the plate and start making public statements on this thread any time, it's open 24/7. The "what's the point in me saying anything because you'll just all jump down my throat / hang me out to dry anyway" justification for their silence is one I wouldn't let a sulking 8-year old get away with. It certainly isn't an appropriate (lack of) response from a company of their size handling the amount of clients' funds that they do and dealing with an issue of this nature. In what other industry would a similar sized company be allowed to get away with adopting this attitude? They'd be hounded by the press, industry watchdogs and any other concerned authorities. Keeping quiet and hiding behind a voluntary third party wouldn't be an option. No reputable company would even try it.

The first statement came well after the software update apparently fixed things. Needless to say the statement was blatantly incorrect - so I will try and determine exactly what happened and on what timeframe. I stand corrected yet again

Why on earth would you try and determine anything? Simply invite EH to address the matter on this thread. Don't they have a PR guy? Why not? I thought you were just checking the code. If you choose to be the messenger on all issues, don't complain when the flak comes flying at you. EH seem to be successfully evading all their responsibilities when it comes to responding to the legitimate concerns of their customers.

[soflat]

Can we get away from the Kengam thing? The fact that the game wasn't reliable for a period in 2006 is reason enough for concerned players to want the logs for earlier years to be checked. That is the "good reason". EH should be bending over backwards to reassure concerned players.

Yes, my statement had nothing to do with Kengam's unsubtantiated claims.

So far the only evidence EH has submitted has proven that they dealt an unfair doubling game during a period of time.

[nafanny29]

As thelawnet said I am very suprised they did not shut the game down and do a full investigation. Fair enough an "update" went through the next day but how did they possibly know that the "update" would rectify the situation.

Normally when there is a serious malfunction with anything involving $$$ it is shut down and not reopened until a VERY full investigation has taken place.

[spearmaster]

You guys can cry for a full investigation all you like but I am simply not going to proceed without some evidence that there were indeed problems before this. I have already explained why I cannot do this and I am not going to be the one opening the Pandora's Box, period.

I thought you were just checking the code. If you choose to be the messenger on all issues, don't complain when the flak comes flying at you.

I want to know for myself - if you don't WANT me to get the answer then I won't waste my time telling you.

Fair enough an "update" went through the next day but how did they possibly know that the "update" would rectify the situation.

They didn't - that's why they made that rash first statement in the first place.