RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[Casinomeister]

I just sent out today's newsletter. You can read the whole shebang here:

http://www.casinomeister.com/newsletter.html

If you're not subscribed, you have no idea what you're missing.

Anyway, I've thrown together my thoughts about the current state of affairs concerning this issue, for those of you who care:


WORD FROM THE MEISTER
A $1.3 Million win NOT!
This industry never ceases to amaze me. If you haven't been following this story about a $1.3 million screw up, I'll give it to you in a nutshell. This player, we'll call him P21 for brevity's sake, won over a million dollars at Hamptons Casino playing Caribbean 21. In fact this player has been paid out about $60,000 dollars from several other RTG casinos and has about $70,000 sitting at Delano casino, but at the moment his Delano account is locked.

This is a lot of friggin' money.

Now the player has been accused of using software, or a "robot" to accentuate his play. This is strictly forbidden in Hampton Casino's terms and conditions. The worst thing is that this player, P21, has admitted it via a taped phone conversation. Who taped the conversation? The casino did without the player's knowledge, and the player did the same to the casino without the casino's knowledge.

Both the player and the casino have posted bits and pieces of this conversation in cyberland: P21 claiming he was hoodwinked into confessing, the casino claiming the confession is good enough. Both P21 and Hamptons casino have been thrown into a lion's den, our forum, where both positions have been turned upside down, dissected, ripped apart, sewn shut, kicked across the floor, and opened up again.

And it ain't nowhere near resolved. Question: how will this be resolved? There is no way in hell that players will let this one go. The amount of money involved is one thing, but where is the regulating entity? There is NOT one. Players of these casinos have no protection, no safety net to catch them when they fall -- and it goes both ways, the casino has no one to turn to, to prove their case. Hamptons Casino is "licensed" in Panama. Where is this "authority" that should be stepping in to solve or resolve this matter? And Hamptons casino should be kicking themselves in the fourth point of contact (an old paratrooper term), by having been licensed here. One would guess that at this stage, the casino would also approach their licensing agency to protect them against fraudulent claims, or to act as an official regulator; someone to give us an authoritative voice. But I believe the Panamanian licensing agency is about as worthless as the Costa Rican one. Prove me wrong please.

The bottom line is, no matter how convincing the tape is (and it is if you have heard the entire 30 minutes - I have), the players need to be presented tangible evidence via a trusted third party who has expertise in this matter. Unfortunately, the casino waited too long to respond; the players' trust is a fragile one. And the damage has been done: Hamptons Casino will always be remembered by the players as the casino that didn't pay a dude $1.3 million because of a stupid rule.

And a stupid rule it is. Microgaming has "robots" built into their software, allowing players to go into autopilot, grab a beer or hot cup o' java while their computer plays away. Go Vortran, go!! But what the hell, that's no fun! I play because I like to play. I use good game play and strategy; I know what I'm doing. But I also go on hunches as well. After a certain number of crappy hands, I'll up the bet 5 or sometimes 10 fold, just so long as my bankroll can handle it. WHAM I hit it big, or I end up staring at .77 cents left in my account...that's why they call it gambling.

Casinos expect this, the erring human factor. Why do you think they serve you free drinks in Vegas? Someone's got to pay the lighting bills there. I spoke to Hampton Casino's manager Ron Lewin over the phone the other day, and he explained that this is one of the reasons they do not allow robot play. He wants to ensure that it's a human on the other end, someone enjoying the casino action, someone making judgement calls - playing on hunches, someone who is likely to error in the casino's favor. This is what they do in Vegas, this is what they do at Hamptons.

This is what the industry is all about.

Even so. It's still a stupid rule. Robots can be programed to play perfect strategy, but they can still lose. They don't "see" the cards on the other side of the table, they are only there as pseudo people. But it's the casino's prerogative to have this rule. And if you break the rules, all bets are off.

Anyway, here is my take on the whole situation:

The player did something that no one can figure out - it wasn't luck - something was manipulated - that's my gut feeling. No one has ever won this much money EVER on this game. As far as I know, P21 played this game exclusively over the past few months at RTG casinos. He is the only person making these sort of winnings.

Hampton's had the same gut feeling and called P21's bluff. P21 realized that he was caught, 'fessed up, and tried to cut a deal for $300,000. But he insisted that the casino would reveal how he was caught. The casino remained tight lipped.

Next: P21's significant other may have found out later that day and commenced to kick some serious butt -- P21's. P21 was convinced to change his story.

The next day, P21 claimed to be duped -- that he was tricked into confessing -- that there is no robot -- that he has been misunderstood and taken advantage of. He was merely playing the games. And so it goes.

DaveR, a long time respected member of our forum mentioned the following scenario in our message board:

This whole thing was an inside job. One of the programmers at RTG (perhaps the developer of Caribbean 21 himself) implemented a cheat mode into the game. This programmer may have revealed this cheat mode to his best friend (computer programming buddy P21), and a robot was developed by either of them. Plans were made to split the profits if the scam worked. $1.3 MILLION is nothing to laugh at

Wow. I wonder if this has been considered by those who have been investigating the case at RTG. If so, remember you heard it here first.

Tantalizing ain't it?

What an industry. Oh, what a mess.

[cipher]

I just sent out today's newsletter. You can read the whole shebang here:

"Wow. I wonder if this has been considered by those who have been investigating the case at RTG."

I won't be surprised to find that there's been absolutely no investigation whatsoever done at REAL TIME GAMING.

By the way Bryan, that was a very well prepared article and I agree that anyone who's not getting the newsletter is seriously missing out. Have a good one.

Cipher

[gamblinboi]

The phone call was just a joke. The player even said he wrote the program in COBOL! I think both sides were recording the conversation to try and get some confession from the other.

I laughed out loud when i heard that. Cobol. lol

[mary]

Hampton needs older programmers, from before The Mouse Age.

Many computer users--not just programmers--don't like using the mouse. It slows them down and is harder on their hands. Playing an online casino game for too long can also cause pain, for example, video poker.

Some casino software providers have keystrokes to playing functions. This is to the operator's benefit as it speeds up play, which makes the games more profitable, and allows players to play for longer sessions.

There is also software available that allows the user to record mouse movements and assign them to key combinations, they are called "macros". They are available for free on the Internet.

A player using macro software will be performing identical mouse movements, to the pixel, with every keystroke, so that is not proof of robot play.

As for winning at several casinos, that is not proof of cheating either. (Say what?) It depends on the math. Playing at several casinos is no different mathematically than playing at one casino. It's probably the same for all practical purposes too as many RTG casinos share a server and an rng.

According to the Wiz, "The house edge following the basic strategy above is 0.19%. The average final bet size is 1.8 units so the element of risk is 0.11%. The standard deviation is 1.62."

0.19% is a very small edge. Add in the loyalty club rebate some RTG casinos have, and it's even smaller.

The player says he played a progression of bets, from $500 to $10k a hand. $1.3 million is only 130 $10k bets. $1.3million as an amount sounds incredible, $10k also; but what if we were talking about a blackjack game of bets from $2.50 to $500 a hand getting up to $75k? On RTG software?

It has happened. More than once. It wasn't questioned at all. No bonuses.

So get rid of the hunches; I want to see some math here.

[Casinomeister]

P21 wanted me to say a couple of things in his behalf after my last post:

Hi Bryan, you forgot to mention tha no one has ever bet the way I did and no one has invested the money I did. Why don't you publish the figures for how much I lost/invested. It is fair to say that no one has invested the time money or effort that I have. Please paint the whole picture. Publish the deposits and losses. You know the virtual wins, 60,000,were never collected and I have collected 17,000 from Delano's... Nobody has ever done this because nobody else plays the way I do. Why is that so hard to see? There is no robot. Just the player in my head.

Also please add that I have been playing / studying c21 extensively for a year and a half not a couple of months.

[portia]

Hampton's "Robert Myers" said that M. Shakelford could not help in this situation, that mathematical analysis would not help.

Truthfully, the casinos first step (or RTG's) would have been to analyze the game logs to answer the question : How unlikely is this players win?

To answer that question would be childs play if we had the game logs. M Shakelford has provided the variance in the game, just need the number of bets at each bet size.

You can be certain that RTG (Michael Staw) has the answer. It would be the first thing to investigate. The SW probably already calculates it in real time to warn them if something has gone awry with their SW.

SINCE Hamptons has not provided the play logs to the player;

AND since they have not used as proof the statisitcal fact of how probable (or improbable) the players win has been;

AND since Hamptons "Robert Myers" is dismissive of the meaningfulness of statistical analysys in this case;

And since the casinos HAVE ALREADY made payments to the player when RTG would have already checked the likely hood of the win to reassure the casinos before paying;

That can lead folks to believe that the statistics show that the players win is
not all that unlikely and the casino (and RTG ) is aware of it.

[amandajm]

As for winning at several casinos, that is not proof of cheating either. (Say what?) It depends on the math. Playing at several casinos is no different mathematically than playing at one casino. It's probably the same for all practical purposes too as many RTG casinos share a server and an rng.

Yep - true - true. Forget sometimes, get caught up in the game.

They are not going to pay him based on the confession Mary. To be honest would you if you were Hamptons?

[jetset]

Good post, Portia.

Another point is Hampton's apparently abandoning their mouse-mapping claim - they have yet to respond to Spear's earlier suggestion that there is technological doubt on that.

These factors all smack of an almost sole reliance on a taped confession obtained under questionable circumstances from a guy they strongly suspect has found a unique way to screw them but cannot be proved to have done so.

[cipher]

Good post, Portia.

Another point is Hampton's apparently abandoning their mouse-mapping claim - they have yet to respond to Spear's earlier suggestion that there is technological doubt on that.

These factors all smack of an almost sole reliance on a taped confession obtained under questionable circumstances from a guy they strongly suspect has found a unique way to screw them but cannot be proved to have done so.

Hi Jet,

That mouse mapping number was doomed from the gate and they (HAMPTON) knew it from the gate.

CIPHER

[mary]

Based on the "confession"?

No. He could have "confessed" to try to get $300k now instead of waiting six years to get $1.3 million *maybe*.

If I ran the casino...well, I'd know the numbers on my games, or have them available, in terms of their edge, variance, hands per hour, basic strategy and the like. If a player requested a raise in maximum bet, I'd calculate what that could cost me. If I had a player's club program, I'd adjust it with respect to the low house edge games (like C21 at 0.19%)

I would play all of my games myself to get a feel for them.

If the player's win was within the realm of reasonable probability based on these measures, I'd pay up.

I wouldn't forbid robot play, because it makes my games more profitable by causing players to roll through their bankroll faster.

I'd use a cosmic ray rng so I wouldn't have to worry about it turning out to have a weak spot.

If a player won way off on the far end of the standard deviation chart, I'd be taking apart his play logs. I'd compare his plays to the basic strategy devised by my mathematician and see if there is any patterns with respect to bet size or deviating from the strategy. I'd check timing and mouse target locations; real robot programmers are on to that though. I'd hire a private investigator to check out the player and run various credit and background checks.