WHY I TRIED TO PAY FOR AN AUDIT!!! I THINK EVEN 3DICE WILL VOUCH FOR ME???

[Mousey]

It is important that an auditor be neutral, and form conclusions based only on what the numbers tell him.

To me, the statement that 3Dice should have an audit means only that. Frankly, I think every online casino should have all games audited by independent, reputable auditors on a regular basis, with the overall results being made public.

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by tim5ny

...but this is quite a damaging statement as it casts quite a shadow of doubt about this casino's credibility. I think you just dug yourself a hole that's going to be hard to climb out of.

It has already been made clear that the statement "...I feel that 3-dice needs a full and independent audit of all its games..." is an unloaded one. Nothing damaging in that; nothing wrong with that. Everyone has been upfront with everything so there is no question about credibility in my opinion.

[tim5ny]

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

Yes dear ,you and your cohorts have made that quite clear for several months now......as Tim said you and cohorts come looking for a fight, will not happen

Nash?? I can find my own trouble easily enough. I don't even know who this person is you're talking to! Do I?

[tim5ny]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

It has already been made clear that the statement "...I feel that 3-dice needs a full and independent audit of all its games..." is an unloaded one. Nothing damaging in that; nothing wrong with that. Everyone has been upfront with everything so there is no question about credibility in my opinion.

Perhaps a very bad choice of words at the very least. Wouldn't a statement like..... "I feel that all casinos need a full and independent audit of all their games" have been a much better way of putting it?

[Casinomeister]

Originally Posted by tim5ny

Perhaps a very bad choice of words at the very least. Wouldn't a statement like..... "I feel that all casinos need a full and independent audit of all their games" have been a much better way of putting it?

That's the difficulty of language - especially written. The sentence standing on its own could imply less than fair software, but taken within the context of the entire assessment - it loses its negative implication. Just goes to show we all read things a bit differently.

[NASHVEGAS]

Originally Posted by tim5ny

Nash?? I can find my own trouble easily enough. I don't even know who this person is you're talking to! Do I?

Sorry I mentioned you,Tim!

[Eliot Jacobson]

"I do not want to address the results of the audit itself. The results may come to light, or they may not. The fundamental point I made in all the versions is that I feel that 3-dice needs a full and independent audit of all its games. I still stand by that. Please do not misconstrue this as a statement that I feel that 3-dice is rigged in any way. They just need a full audit."

My statement above is not a statement about 3-dice in particular having software issues, I simply feel that all companies that produce their own online casino software should have a full audit by an independent company that has no financial interest in the results. There is no hurry for this; it should be done eventually and I am sure they will come through.

I would like to extend my apology above to 3-dice as well. They also had to deal with a lot of the confusion caused by the circumstances I described.

There was also a question about what an "audit" means. This means being sent complete log files for a period of time for every wager on every game, that includes a history of all events for that game (the cards dealt, the values of the dice for each spin, or whatever). One then designs statistical tests to verify that the sequence of cards or dice tosses or whatever are behaving in a fashion that is indistinguishable from "random." If you wonder what "random" means, I recommend the first 170 pages of volume 1 of the book "Semi-numerical algorithms" by Donald Knuth. In a nutshell, random means that the values should statistically perform normally for every conceivable test. In practice one cannot conduct every conceivable test, so one picks a few tests and looks for anything that indicates further tests are needed.

For example, in blackjack, from what I understand PWC samples subsets of cards of various sizes and makes sure that no matter what subset they choose, those cards are equally distributed between the 52 cards. They sample subsets of dealer cards, player cards, and other subsets, and in every case they verify the normal distribution of the cards.

That is not how I proceed. I have 10 tests that I have designed, plus I also do whatever tests a particular client requests. For example, I verify distribution of every possible 2 card starting hand. I look at blackjacks and aces. I consider draw cards to hard totals for the player, draw cards for double downs. I have many more tests. This is much more detailed (from what I understand) than the PWC proceedure. It is not possible to say that my methods are any better. Both PWC and myself are just looking for some indication that something should be looked at in more detail.

Best to all,

Eliot

[tim5ny]

Originally Posted by NASHVEGAS

Sorry I mentioned you,Tim!

It doesn't matter Nash!

Brothers in Arms... right?

[NASHVEGAS]

Enzo,
Please read my PM. Thank You,Garry!