Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[spearmaster]

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.

Accusing me of being biased isn't that civil... I'm as interested the truth as everyone else, and I'm willing to go as far as I can in order to discover this truth.

The code was written without any knowledge of what the result would be. If it had turned out that the numbers were wrong, there likely would have been hell to pay. As it turns out, though, the scenario supports what has been seen in the logs.

I mentioned at least a couple of times in the last few days that I would be doing brute-force simulation as well as releasing that code publicly - and you made no mention of it then - why would you bring it up after the results of the simulation appear to support the casino? Would you have said the same thing if the results did not appear to support the casino?

[kengam]

Spear, I just want to see the double up logs for the last 3 years. That is my concern. I don't care what code they sent you. The game was cheating in April. I have reason to believe it was cheating at other times before that.

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAST LOGS? Everyone else here has posted that it would be helpful to see them.

[spearmaster]

Spear, I just want to see the double up logs for the last 3 years. That is my concern. I don't care what code they sent you. The game was cheating in April. I have reason to believe it was cheating at other times before that.

HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAST LOGS? Everyone else here has posted that it would be helpful to see them.

I said that the past logs have no relevance to the current issue. I did not say anything about their significance or lack thereof. And I also said that if someone posted reasonable evidence that there was a problem in the past, that I would look into it.

Since you are the only one actually claiming a problem in the past, and you can't or won't provide reasonable evidence, I see no reason to proceed.

It is simply unreasonable to call for logs based solely on the belief that you might have not had a fair game, because players constantly claim that "this casino cheats", "that game is unfair", etc. and if we looked into your unsubstantiated claim, we would then be told we should look into all these other unsubstantiated claims, and if we didn't we would be accused of being biased.

Definite no-win for me or anyone else trying to help out. So, if you want the logs, and the casino is willing to give them you on the basis of your claim, I won't be the one looking into it.

I do agree that revealing them and showing fairness of their games in the past would probably benefit the casino.

But that's what I call a Pandora's Box - and it is not exaggerated in the slightest.

[kengam]

It is simply unreasonable to call for logs based solely on the belief that you might have not had a fair game, because players constantly claim that "this casino cheats", "that game is unfair", etc.

While this is true the one problem is THIS CASINO DID CHEAT. How is it unreasonable? You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life? Your Pandoras Box analogy works fine in cases where the casino had not been caught cheating. English Harbour was caught and it is up to THEM to prove that it didn't happen before.

[spearmaster]

While this is true the one problem is THIS CASINO DID CHEAT. How is it unreasonable? You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life? Your Pandoras Box analogy works fine in cases where the casino had not been caught cheating. English Harbour was caught and it is up to THEM to prove that it didn't happen before.

My definition of "cheat" includes "willfully" or "deliberately". Caught with their pants down, yes. Non-random, yes. Cheating, still undetermined.

You are alone in your thinking on this. Did you ever for a second think that you have been had? Have you ever been wrong in your life?

You're crossing that "civil" line again.

[kengam]

enough with your little warnings. Ban me if you feel it is necessary, but I will continue to speak my mind.

[spearmaster]

enough with your little warnings. Ban me if you feel it is necessary, but I will continue to speak my mind.

Pardon me if I hold you to your own promises.

In exchange for your continued cooperation with questions I will refrain from being uncivil and accusatory. I know you are not at fault here.

[chalupa]

I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now ) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

Those factors severely distract from the only question that really can be answered by examining the code: "Does the code as provided by English Harbour explain the irregular doubling results?" That question could have (and should have) been answered quickly and dispassionately.

The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.

English Harbour / OddsOn has not been at all forthcoming. The explanation for how this screwup occurred should have been supplied by them directly long ago.

Based on what Spear has reported so far, I would guess that it is probably an inadvertent screwup.

But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.

They should have immediately provided a comprehensive analysis of all log files from the time anyone ever started messing with the code to present, to allay fears that it was broken during some period(s) in the past. They should continue to provide log files for at least several months in the future to show that the problem is indeed fixed.

And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.

They have yet to directly reply to any of the numerous legitimate concerns raised in this thread. They are coming up awfully short in a number of respects. The magnitude of the error demands better.

As has been pointed out... they ain't exactly the only game in town. We're already gambling -- who needs the extra uncertainty?

[spearmaster]

I think in retrospect (I would imagine Spear agrees by now ) a more independent programming expert should have examined the code.

Not necessarily - one of the problems is that a person examining the code does have to have reasonable knowledge of the game being analyzed.

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

This moderator suspended one user account in relation to this issue after repeated warnings that wild speculation would not be tolerated. The polls were suspended because they both were based on speculation alone and could have been unfair to EH.

The rest of the defense of English Harbour is of course opinion and conjecture. And it is English Harbour's fight to fight, not a hapless intermediary's problem.

Hapless? LOL, don't know if I would agree with that...

But even assuming that's true, thay have not explained when the bonus game code was originally introduced, or whether it was being tested at other points in the past.

My understanding is that this game was not introduced or ready to be introduced. If you mean introduced into the coding itself rather than being able to be played, that I don't have an answer for.

And, of course, they should have explained what systems they are (hopefully!) putting in place to make sure that a similar problem does not go undetected in the future.

This I fully agree with.

[Casinomeister]

Not someone who is also involved in the industry, too busy to investigate quickly, and most importantly -- a moderator on this board, with the power (which was excercised) to suspend user accounts and close polls which he felt were unfair to English Harbour, while we waited (and waited).

Actually, I would rather have Spear deal with this than some other third party entity - especially one we are unfamiliar with. Reason? Spear can't be bought off, and I'll put my reputation on the line to back him up. I wouldn't do that with ACME Auditing Ltd. So I think we have the best thing going for now. There's something to be said about a self-regulating industry.

Sure Spear is a moderator here, and yes he suspended one account of a member who has a history of ignoring forum rules and guidelines. (Spear did warn people to chill, did he not?) Keeping a thread on track is a very difficult job, especially ones like this that are so heated yet so important. We cannot afford to let it spin out of control with emotionalism; this is a discussion - not a witch hunt.

Moderation is tough work and the only thing he gets out of it is recognition and maybe a dinner once or twice a year from me.

As for hurrying for the results, I would rather have the results from something well-thought out than hastily done.