I agree. I don't understand why Mr Shackleford said that he would have caught the problem in June (when he normally looks at the logs). If that were true (that he normally looks at thedouble-up) then how come he would need to go back over the old logs to see if it were unfair earlier. There is a contradiction there.I do not believe that the video poker doubling game was ever specifically audited, as the fact that Mr. Shackelford did not already have at his disposal logs for the previous 12 months or so shows this. The 'guarantee' is little different from a celebrity endorsement of a running shoe, and really guarantees nothing.
I'm guessing that he only looks at the rng and maybe overall payout percentages like Price Waterhouse. Which is totally worthless. I feel it was deceptive to say the games are fair if he never looked.
Your post pretty much summarizes how I feel about the whole situation.




LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks


Bookmarks