Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[tennis_balls]

Dude. I don't know who you're married to, but if my wife caught me cheating, a last will and testament might be in order...

unless she had a moment to compose herself as she'd surely stand to gain more financially by sparing your life.

[spearmaster]

unless she had a moment to compose herself as she'd surely stand to gain more financially by sparing your life.

In the heat of the moment of discovery, I hardly think that financial considerations would be foremost in her mind

[spearmaster]

A short update.

While waiting for the last bits of information, I did manage to create the brute force simulation based entirely on the scenario I had gleaned from the code - but without using or porting any of the actual code that was given to me. The script was written entirely from scratch to recreate a doubling game, with additional code to simulate the end result of the bonus game as I understood it.

The results of this brute force simulation are entirely consistent with the results shown in the logs - at least in my opinion, without any mathematical testing done against these results.

I do need these last bits of information in order to make sure my recreation of the scenario in code is accurate. Once this is done I will release the full simulation code, commented in great detail, along with a live demo for testing - but no graphics LOL, I don't think they are necessary for this simulation.

[big_mac]

That sounds like it should be interesting, I am sure that I am not the only one who would love to see the original code! But I am a very curious chap ;-)

FWIW, I am happy to believe that it looks very much like this was a stupid mistake (made enough of them myself).

Although I am curious as to why they were testing this new bonus game with VP in the first place, does the code give any clues to that? Are all the bonus games interchangeable, or was this one being specifically written for VP?
I know that sometimes, when you are testing a new feature, you put it in somewhere else so that it happens much more often and you can do the testing quicker.

Does it look like the new bonus game could have been designed to replace the old one? i.e. is it supposed to follow the same format, look, or have the same public method calls etc.
Does it look like the new bonus game was meant to be a 50/50 game, or was it meant to be weighted in some way?

Sorry if any of these were answered already, it's a lot of posts to get through - and hard to spot the details!

[spearmaster]

That sounds like it should be interesting, I am sure that I am not the only one who would love to see the original code! But I am a very curious chap ;-)

FWIW, I am happy to believe that it looks very much like this was a stupid mistake (made enough of them myself).

Although I am curious as to why they were testing this new bonus game with VP in the first place, does the code give any clues to that? Are all the bonus games interchangeable, or was this one being specifically written for VP?
I know that sometimes, when you are testing a new feature, you put it in somewhere else so that it happens much more often and you can do the testing quicker.

Does it look like the new bonus game could have been designed to replace the old one? i.e. is it supposed to follow the same format, look, or have the same public method calls etc.
Does it look like the new bonus game was meant to be a 50/50 game, or was it meant to be weighted in some way?

Sorry if any of these were answered already, it's a lot of posts to get through - and hard to spot the details!

Let me clarify what is going on LOL.

I wrote code to simulate the scenario based on what I surmised had happened - I did not have the actual code with me and really there was no need for it because I had already studied the scenario.

What I will release is my simulation code - obviously not the original code that was given to me by EH. But the simulation code will pretty much show what happened as it runs in a very similar manner.

The simulation I wrote does not include the bonus code because ultimately that bonus code was irrelevant, except for the part where it overwrote the wrong array. It will, however, have some bit to simulate weighting, although what I release to the public will be evenly weighted as the actual weights would not make a significant difference and of course are proprietary. This bonus code was meant for the VP games only, though I believe it was derived from other bonus game code used elsewhere.

The new bonus game was NOT in any way designed to replace the standard doubling game. It was meant to be an enhancement in that, on random occasions (think RapidFire at Intercasino, or perhaps the Heroes jackpot) give you a CHOICE of whether or not you would like to risk your doubled winnings for the chance of up to 10x multiplier, hence the weighting was introduced. This bonus game is not meant to be mandatory at any stage so if a player only wanted to play the normal doubling game he could do so.

There is NO weighting code for the normal doubling game at all.

I'm going to try and make my simulation code cleaner, and the output more comprehensive so it will be easy to follow along to see what happened.

Thanks for the questions!

[120sam]

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.

I assume this was written in haste, and that you're not seriously suggesting that you will, in addition to filtering the questions you think are suitable to be put to EH, now also be filtering any information that may flow in the other direction, on the basis of who annoys you ?

The longer we debate this issue, the longer it takes for me to do what I need to do to resolve the real issue. Which will it be? You want me to continue debating, I am happy to do so. But I would rather just get the other stuff over and done with if that's all right by all of you.

You still think the real issue is whether the game was fixed deliberately or through mind-blowing incompetence? That's no longer the issue for me, it has become an irrelevance. And any "resolution" of that issue will leave a whole lot of other issues unresolved, all of which have been raised in this thread, all of which have been ignored by EH.

All EH have done so far is pay Spearmaster the huge compliment of being the first in the industry to get code from an online casino (the code that they chose to show him anyway), and left him to handle all the flak for them, which he has voluntarily done (although I can't for the life of me work out why).

EH seems to think that if a question hasn't been asked by Spearmaster then they don't need to answer it. This seems to be a view shared by Spearmaster. You really need to define your role here Spearmaster, first you were checking the code, now you're doing … what? If you resent having your time wasted by forum members raising legitimate questions and concerns why do you respond to them? Why don't you just stand back and let EH do it, while you get on with checking the code? And if EH don't respond, let their silence speak volumes.

Those seeking the banning of internet gambling can hold up EH as the perfect example of the type of cowboy operation that is currently operating in the industry. They can get away with bent games, incompetence, and ignoring their customers. This case also illustrates a complete absence of effective controls and consequences. The only consequence is that those who know about EH (or remember this in a few months from now) will never go near them again.

[kengam]

Spearmaster...I do not understand what significance your simulated code will have on the defense of English Harbour as it is absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them. You are telling us that you wrote a pseudo code in a short period of time. How do we know that isn't exactly what their programmers did in the weeks time they had to submit this code to you? If you look back at the timeline they had much more time coming up with this sloppy code than you have spent.

You seem to be the only one who believes that past history logs are unimportant to their defense. Perhaps your pandora box theory is a little exaggerated. Since you will not ask for the logs, I will ask for them personally. If they had nothing to hide they would have provided them already. You alone have given them an excuse to not provide them. You are muddying the waters here between players and management.

[spearmaster]

Spearmaster...I do not understand what significance your simulated code will have on the defense of English Harbour as it is absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them. You are telling us that you wrote a pseudo code in a short period of time. How do we know that isn't exactly what their programmers did in the weeks time they had to submit this code to you? If you look back at the timeline they had much more time coming up with this sloppy code than you have spent.

You seem to be the only one who believes that past history logs are unimportant to their defense. Perhaps your pandora box theory is a little exaggerated. Since you will not ask for the logs, I will ask for them personally. If they had nothing to hide they would have provided them already. You alone have given them an excuse to not provide them. You are muddying the waters here between players and management.

I thought we agreed we were not going to start this up again?

I did not write a game. I wrote what I said would be code to simulate the scenario - you cannot draw any distinctions between my code and their code, plus their code was not used, copied, or reverse-engineered in my simulation - in fact it was nowhere to be seen when I wrote it.

I answered your questions, and I will answer more of your questions, and you promised to stop getting on my case. So what prompted you to start up again, the fact that I did a brute-force test which shows that the scenario is consistent with their logs?

You may ask all you want for their logs and if they deliver that's up to them. But I have already said that *I* will not be examining them and that is final. And if they decide they don't want to divulge the logs for whatever reason, don't even think about blaming me.

absolutely clear to me that you are hell bent on defending them

And no more of this shit. If the scenario had NOT panned out then I would have been asking a LOT more questions.

[big_mac]

What I will release is my simulation code - obviously not the original code that was given to me by EH. But the simulation code will pretty much show what happened as it runs in a very similar manner.

I understood that bit! I am not expecting to get to see their code, particularly if it's as bad as you say it is, they are probably embarassed ;-) Actually, I could do with a job for the summer, maybe I could tidy it up for them.......

The new bonus game was NOT in any way designed to replace the standard doubling game..... This bonus game is not meant to be mandatory at any stage so if a player only wanted to play the normal doubling game he could do so.

That's what I wanted to know. Although you had said this before, I was a bit cynical that you were just taking their word for it - but I understand better now.

I'm going to try and make my simulation code cleaner, and the output more comprehensive so it will be easy to follow along to see what happened.

I look forward to seeing it!
Thanks for the answers.

[kengam]

I did not write a game. I wrote what I said would be code to simulate the scenario - you cannot draw any distinctions between my code and their code, plus their code was not used, copied, or reverse-engineered in my simulation - in fact it was nowhere to be seen when I wrote it

Explain how this is going to help us? Sounds like a waste of time to me. I am being civil, but I stand by my statement that you are hurting our chances of ever seeing the logs from years past.