RTG's Caribbean 21 lie

[Jblack]

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.

After reading through several of your posts Mary. I honestly think you should run a casino.

[portia]

After reading through several of your posts Mary. I honestly think you should run a casino.

I disagree. And stop showing off Mary, the house already has enough of an edge without your helping them further.

[portia]

Believe RTG's M. Staw is pretty sharp with the gaming math. That is why i have difficulty with Hampton's position.

Following up earlier post :

If they did find the players history to be toooo improbable a result from a fair game (and if they did they have been strangely silent), the next thing they could do would be to go back to the player logs to see if the players uses a consistent strategy based on cards seen. Does he?

Does he follow the basic strategy of M Shackleford?

Does he use a consistent strategy which differs from the Wizards BS?
If so how much does his deviant play cost?
And how much more improbable does it make his play history?
Or is his strategy correct and the wizards wrong?
Is the wizards house edge and variance correct?

If on his big bets he does not use a consistent strategy wrt the seen cards, then is he a lucky guesser or does he have info on unexposed cards?

This ASSUMES that his play history was calculated to be improbable - which, if it were the case - then RTG/Hamptons would have said so to support their position instead of :

1) dismissing mathematical analysis as irrelevant to this case;

2) Categorically denying any possibility of further payment to the player and then lurring him with the offer of 6 figures for info on a "bot".

3) Hang there hat on that fanciful notion of keystroke analysis - casino owners sure think players are stupid don't they? (Actually they rely on it don't they).

Could RTG answer some of these questions concerning hard facts. Just the math please. You got the numbers. Enlighten us.

[mary]

Thank you for the kind words. Now, if certain elected officials in the US could just see the Keno numbers on the wall...

I want to see if a progression was strictly followed. Were the deviations from Shackleford's Basic Strategy to get more money on the table, that is, increase bet size? What were the biggest bets? $40k? $60k? Did the game have a limit on how many times one could split/resplit/double down?

How "streaky" was the game in terms of results? Think of how Pai Gow differs from Blackjack in terms of the number of pushes. Every game has characteristics like that--how many times does the dealer win? How many ties? How many times the player wins? How many times the player wins on bonus hands?

This game had surrender and insurance as options. Were there hedging opportunities that offered more variance?

[jetset]

Just a refresher on Hampton's official statement. Points 2, 4, 5 (game logs?) 6 (technical proof?) and 8 (justification for those phone calls) are illuminating following the more in-depth studies of this intriguing issue by posters here in recent days:

Dear readers,

This message is from Hampton Casino and is addressed in general to the gaming community.

This pertains to the volumes of messages posted regarding our operation by "Pirateofc21" and the responses to them.

We post this to clear the air once and for all. Here's the facts and subsequently proof to back them up :

1> "Pirateofc21" signed up with our casino with the intention to defraud us using his "Robot software" the use of which is strictly forbidden at Hampton Casino as explained at our Terms and Conditions page http://www.hamptoncasino.com/legal.asp

2> He misled us during the period of his play at our casino and got higher limits from the casino manager as that favored his robot's playing strategy

3> He ran his balance up to 1.3 Million Dollars and requested a withdrawal

4> We were at that time completely unaware of the illegal robot play in his account and began paying him his payout just like we have done with thousands of players over the past few years

5> We did however launch a detailed investigation into the play done in this account

6> Our software/technical experts detected robot play and determined that no human could have possibly been playing in that account

7> By that time we had already paid him $ 22500 in installments of $ 4000 a week as per our terms and conditions. We of course stopped these payments immediately.

8> We realized that it would be very hard to present the evidence at hand to the gaming community and prove his guilt and our innocence since the evidence was extremely technical hence we decided to engage in phone conversations with "Pirateofc21" for the purpose of making him admit his guilt and making this a lot easier on all of us

9> Ron Lewin (our casino manager) engaged in extensive conversations with him in which the player admitted to having this robot and even offered to sell it for $ 300,000.

The relevant part of those conversations can be listened to by clicking the link below. You will need Winamp or some other MP3 player to listen. If you do not have an MP3 player installed on your computer then you may download Winamp from http://download.nullsoft.com/winamp...amp502_lite.exe (0.6 MB only)

The conversation itself is 5.59 MB and can be downloaded from :

http://www.hamptoncasino.com/conversation.mp3

This part of the conversation is unedited and is provided to you just like it happened.

I hope this will lay to rest any and all doubts about our honesty, integrity and intentions. We have always been more than fair to our players and I must say that I find it a bit hurtful that the community was so quick to indict a well established operation such as ours. At the same time, I would like to thank all those player that have supported us during this time.

We will leave the conversation up for a few days so all of you can download and listen as and how you please. I will also hang around for any questions.

Regards

Robert Myers
Public Relations
Hampton Casino

[jyde]

If Hamptons would tell us WHY robot play is illegal I'd be delighted. I don't know if Pirate used a robot or not, I honestly don't care, and I don't think Hampton should either.

Why don't other RTG's have terms like this? Is it because they don't make sense?
Does RTG officially support Hamptons crusade against robots?

[cipher]

[QUOTE=jetset]Just a refresher on Hampton's official statement. Points 2, 4, 5 (game logs?) 6 (technical proof?) and 8 (justification for those phone calls) are illuminating following the more in-depth studies of this intriguing issue by posters here in recent days:

This is a direct quote from the 911 Trascript:

RON: "We spend a lot of money to make sure our players are for real."

Player: You got ripped off.

Addendum to transcript: After a careful analysis of the tape. The player can be heard saying "They gave you false information" as Ron was speaking above him.

I certainly hope Ron wasn't referring to his mouse mappers getting a lot of money?

Cipher

[SFeagleAgain]

First of all, I have to say that I have worked in the legal field for a long time. I think that if Hampton's legal counsel advised them to post this conversation, it's time to find new counsel. One of the best parts of the tape is the "pregnant" pause after Hampton's manager asked pirate if he wanted to sell the "program". If you listen to the inflection in pirate's voice and the hesitation between the asking of the question and the answer, it speaks volumes. And just for the record, Hampton's, he did not OFFER to sell "it", he was ASKED to sell "it" and you even suggested using "it" to scam other casinos. Any experienced litigator would tear this to shreds. It was apparent from pirate's answer that he didn't know what they were talking about and was just trying to milk them, so to speak. And as for the question about how many other programs he had developed....this guy is a programmer. And the "mousemapping" is just too incredibly stupid to even speak of. IMO, Hampton is desperate, pure and simple. Entrapment is against the law last time I checked and this tape is just that. And I do not care WHO you are, there is not legal counsel anywhere who is going to tell their client that coercion is the best way to handle this matter. And to even speak of paying someone to make a program to do to others as you believe has been done to you and then offer them a "partnership" is unthinkable. Even though pirate may have shot off his mouth and weakened his case, Hampton's has dug the hole and crawled in. Simple as that. As for your claim that you paid him $22,500.00 in installments of $4,000.00 per week, check your math or buy a calculator. Either will work.

Edited to add: How could raising a player's limits increase a bot's ability if he was already playing perfect strategy? Sounds like a desperate move by the casino hoping that pirate would hit a big losing streak. Hampton needs to look over their imbecilic statements before posting.

[cipher]

First of all, I have to say that I have worked in the legal field for a long time. I think that if Hampton's legal counsel advised them to post this conversation, it's time to find new counsel. One of the best parts of the tape is the "pregnant" pause after Hampton's manager asked pirate if he wanted to sell the "program". If you listen to the inflection in pirate's voice and the hesitation between the asking of the question and the answer, it speaks volumes. And just for the record, Hampton's, he did not OFFER to sell "it", he was ASKED to sell "it" and you even suggested using "it" to scam other casinos. Any experienced litigator would tear this to shreds. It was apparent from pirate's answer that he didn't know what they were talking about and was just trying to milk them, so to speak. And the "mousemapping" is just too incredibly stupid to even speak of. IMO, Hampton is desperate, pure and simple. Entrapment is against the law last time I checked and this tape is just that. And I do not care WHO you are, there is not legal counsel anywhere who is going to tell their client that coercion is the best way to handle this matter. And to even speak of paying someone to make a program to do to others as you believe has been done to you and then offer them a "partnership" is unthinkable. Even though pirate may have shot off his mouth and weakened his case, Hampton's has dug the hole and crawled in. Simple as that.

Edited to add: How could raising a player's limits increase a bot's ability if he was already playing perfect strategy? Sounds like a desperate move by the casino hoping that pirate would hit a big losing streak. Hampton needs to look over their imbecilic statements before posting.

Well let me tell you, if you prepare a case for trial even half as well as you've prepared your first post on this forum I don't think I'd want to be on the other side. Welcome to the forum.

Cipher

[SFeagleAgain]

Criminal Solicitation

Definition of Solicitation. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime or which would establish his complicity in its commission or attempted commission.
Uncommunicated Solicitation. It is immaterial under Subsection (1) of this Section that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication.
Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Criminal Conspiracy

Definition of Conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.
Scope of Conspiratorial Relationship. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined by Subsection (1) of this Section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime.
Conspiracy With Multiple Criminal Objectives. If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

Thank you, Cipher. I appreciate your kind comments and the above is just the start of where an experienced litigator would commence, most likely. I suspect there would be some "ass-blistering" sidebars involved and also an ethics investigation for the legal counsel. Mind you, the tape would never be made public to a jury, however, it would most likely be heard in chambers, which would, of course, influence what a judge would, or would not, allow in trial. Being incredibly stupid is not a criminal act. Soliciting a crime is. And from what I heard on that tape, that is exactly what happened here. There was not even a feeble attempt to cover up the intentions. I am not a new poster, however it has been a while since my last post and I am a frequent lurker. Have a good day and thanks again for your kind words.