Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[Pinababy69]

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.

Maybe next time you guys meet up Bryan, you could make sure he gets something better than a lousy hamburger and some soggy fries? LOL......

[Casinomeister]

Maybe next time you guys meet up Bryan, you could make sure he gets something better than a lousy hamburger and some soggy fries? LOL......

FTR: if you are referring to the fries Spear had during the lunch meeting with EH. They were not soggy; they were totally excellent.

[spearmaster]

Actually, if there weren't any fries there would have been a big problem... the fries were half-decent.

The dinner Meister treated me to was really excellent though... needless to say it was more than wine and cheese and I'll have to try hard not to become biased

[chalupa]

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

I have difficulty imagining a programming expert who can't understand how a video poker game (and specifically a double-down game) is supposed to work within 5 minutes of playing one.

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.

Yes, that's what I mean. From what I understand, code was written, they were goofing around testing it, then didn't correctly comment it all out before uploading it to the live server.

Unless all that code was written and (mostly) removed within one release cycle, it stands to reason that at some previous point there was code being tested... and possibly not being completely removed.

Certainly it is a completely valid concern for a player to have, and one that English Harbour should be making every effort to dispell. The fact that they didn't immediately release a longer historical record (and still have not) can only cause doubt and suspicion in players' minds.

This moderator suspended... because... unfair to EH.

Your defensive response simply underscores the problem. The reasons for the suspensions are almost immaterial. Whether players agree with your reasons or not, you are clearly not an unencumbered examiner of code.

A truly independent examiner would not care if something was unfair to English Harbour, wouldn't be defending them or comparing them favorably to others in the industry, or wasting time defending his public profile from personal attacks... etc. He would simply report his findings on the code. And those findings would be much more likely to be taken at face value.

Your apparent personal relationship with English Harbour execs certainly doesn't help perceptions either. And perceptions are extremely important, because players have to place a HUGE amount of faith in these invisible offshore unregulated easily-riggable casinos.

I personally am not questioning your integrity, but nonetheless I think English Harbour did themselves and you a big disservice by involving you in this manner, given your pre-existing roles.

Perhaps that's difficult to see while you are embroiled in this nearly thankless situation... but it's pretty clear from here. You poor hapless sucker.

[Pinababy69]

Actually, if there weren't any fries there would have been a big problem... the fries were half-decent.

Nice to know we do something right here in Canada, lol.... Glad you guys enjoyed them.

The dinner Meister treated me to was really excellent though... needless to say it was more than wine and cheese and I'll have to try hard not to become biased

LMFAO..... touche Spear.

[Vesuvio]

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.

It's a shame about the graphics, though. One of the key issues here is the credibility of this unusual bonus game as a genuine "enhancement" they planned to introduce and not simply as a card-rigging routine that somehow found its way onto the server. Some graphical evidence for the game would make it hugely more plausible.

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.

I don't doubt for a second the overall code you were given produces the results suggested, but if we're going to get any closer to resolving the question of intent through the code then we also need to know the details of how the results were produced. Again, the bonus code is central to this. There shouldn't be a problem giving away proprietary details of a way of dealing weighted cards as no fair (and sane) casino software company would ever introduce such a thing

[spearmaster]

I have difficulty imagining a programming expert who can't understand how a video poker game (and specifically a double-down game) is supposed to work within 5 minutes of playing one.

One still has to sort out what is what. A person who would not be a VP player would have to take some time to sort this out.

That being said, working out a doubling game is not, as some people might put it, rocket science. But you still have the apparently unintended interference from the bonus game.

Yes, that's what I mean. From what I understand, code was written, they were goofing around testing it, then didn't correctly comment it all out before uploading it to the live server.

Unless all that code was written and (mostly) removed within one release cycle, it stands to reason that at some previous point there was code being tested... and possibly not being completely removed.

Agreed.

Certainly it is a completely valid concern for a player to have, and one that English Harbour should be making every effort to dispell. The fact that they didn't immediately release a longer historical record (and still have not) can only cause doubt and suspicion in players' minds.

I'm still not convinced that a longer historical record has anything to do with this issue at all. You have to consider a few basic things:

1. The game did operate properly for the first part of April.
2. A problem like this surely would have been raised earlier if it existed because it was such a huge disadvantage to the player - and surely no one could have missed this - you see in the forums even really obscure casinos are being challenged on similar things - how in the world could EH have escaped being noticed?

You might not consider that enough reason NOT to look - but I do.

Your defensive response simply underscores the problem. The reasons for the suspensions are almost immaterial. Whether players agree with your reasons or not, you are clearly not an unencumbered examiner of code.

Disagree. Warning was issued at LEAST twice, if not more - and was NOT heeded. Our job as moderators is are exactly as our titles describe. Had someone from EH came in here and tried a similar tactic they would have received exactly the same treatment. And when other casino reps come in here and spam or pose as a player, intentional or not, they too get the same treatment.

Let me point out that Caruso was the first person I banned for something other than spam - so it's not like I have a track record of banning people who disagree with me... sheesh...

A truly independent examiner would not care if something was unfair to English Harbour, wouldn't be defending them or comparing them favorably to others in the industry, or wasting time defending his public profile from personal attacks... etc. He would simply report his findings on the code. And those findings would be much more likely to be taken at face value.

See above. All posters in here are treated the same way provided they follow the rules.

Keep in mind that I am not being paid for this work or investigation, whereas what you term as a "truly independent" examiner or auditor most indeed gets paid for his work. So if I appear a bit irritable at times you might be able to understand why.

Your apparent personal relationship with English Harbour execs certainly doesn't help perceptions either. And perceptions are extremely important, because players have to place a HUGE amount of faith in these invisible offshore unregulated easily-riggable casinos.

My personal relationship with EH execs have generally consisted of "Hello, how are you, how's business" and that's about it. I am perfectly happy to disclose the extent of any relationship - and in fact have done so before and multiple times.

I personally am not questioning your integrity, but nonetheless I think English Harbour did themselves and you a big disservice by involving you in this manner, given your pre-existing roles.

They did not involve me. I involved myself. I take sole responsibility for trying to investigate this issue. And again I will repeat that EH has cooperated in a manner unlike other operations by releasing their code - and have not once tried to influence, suggest, or otherwise manipulate the outcome.

Perhaps that's difficult to see while you are embroiled in this nearly thankless situation... but it's pretty clear from here. You poor hapless sucker.

LOL. Not hapless. Maybe hardheaded, but as I said above I involved myself of my own free will, with no pressure from anyone to do so.

[spearmaster]

It's a shame about the graphics, though. One of the key issues here is the credibility of this unusual bonus game as a genuine "enhancement" they planned to introduce and not simply as a card-rigging routine that somehow found its way onto the server. Some graphical evidence for the game would make it hugely more plausible.

I think I said somewhere before that graphics are usually produced after the fact - I know I always prototype with code and text first. And frankly, I don't think there would be any significant amount of special graphics involved in any case.

Your point is taken, however.

I don't doubt for a second the overall code you were given produces the results suggested, but if we're going to get any closer to resolving the question of intent through the code then we also need to know the details of how the results were produced. Again, the bonus code is central to this. There shouldn't be a problem giving away proprietary details of a way of dealing weighted cards as no fair (and sane) casino software company would ever introduce such a thing

I did say I would try to detail as much as possible - whether or not it's exactly what you are looking for or not will be known soon as I am done anyhow The bonus code is not really that central, you might compare it to a bystander on the street somehow caught up in an accident.

The dealing of weighted cards is only supposed to occur in the bonus game itself - not in the doubling function. I am, however, going to show in the code the exact same results delivered by the doubling function, then with the overwrite I will show what an evenly weighted result would have delivered after the error occurred. And in the visible results, but not in the code, I will show what effect the weighted result would have had on exactly the same results - I cannot release the actual weights to you but I am expecting that the change in results will be very slight.

I will do my best to deliver as clear a picture as possible - I am trying to anticipate what you might look for as a player because I am myself approaching this from the perspective of a player.

edit -> By the way, I should add that the brute-force code I wrote used a completely random deck without weighting - and is already more or less consistent with the results - this is why I don't believe the weighting will make any difference.

[Zoozie]

1. The game did operate properly for the first part of April.
2. A problem like this surely would have been raised earlier if it existed because it was such a huge disadvantage to the player - and surely no one could have missed this - you see in the forums even really obscure casinos are being challenged on similar things - how in the world could EH have escaped being noticed?

We all agree that the bug has not existed in the same form for a very long time. But I am still suspecious about doubling as I myself about 6 months ago had a very bad loosing streak doubling in VP (but only 1 to 15000 I think, so possible).

The bug could have been there forever, but if the second bonus game was a 'fair' game, it would not have been discovered. It would actually be a perfect fair doubling. But what if this parameter for the second bonus game has been changed multiple times during development? And it was just in the last
release that it was changed so much it became obvious?
( It could have been 40% win ratio at some time earlier)

I see two ways to settle this:
1) Provide old data for the doubling
2) Access to the version history for the code (CVS etc.)

Zoozie

[spearmaster]

The bug could have been there forever, but if the second bonus game was a 'fair' game, it would not have been discovered. It would actually be a perfect fair doubling. But what if this parameter for the second bonus game has been changed multiple times during development? And it was just in the last release that it was changed so much it became obvious ( It could have been 40% win ratio at some time earlier)

It's not a parameter - that's the whole point. This code could not have been present in a live game in the past because even with a NORMAL deck the error would have resulted in the logs you see for the period in question.

I see two ways to settle this:
1) Provide old data for the doubling
2) Access to the version history for the code (CVS etc.)

Zoozie

Again, access to the logs doesn't make any sense because there isn't any sort of switch present. This code is not possible to tweak in the manner you described because, as I said, even with a normal deck the results would have caused a huge discrepancy had the bonus code been enabled in any way.

Access to the CVS would be wonderful! LOL... but somehow I really doubt that would happen especially since the code has never been open source