Mathematical Proof that English Harbour is cheating

[caruso]

Actually, this was an excellent move by English Harbour.

The last case of proven cheating, Casino Bar, was moving into the annals of history, and with all the "verification" stamps on casino websites these days, one is lulled into an extremely errant sense of security.

"They don't cheat because they don't need to. I mean, there's a house edge, right?"

LMAO.

Good one, English Harbour. This was just the wake up call players needed.

1) They can cheat. Proven.

2) They have cheated. Proven.

3) They're still cheating. Proven.

Even now, eleven years into the business, "big" casino groups run cheating software.

I hope the major providers NEVER contemplate a stunt like this. It would cost them big time if they were caught.

All online games produced by Odds On Gaming have been audited for fairness of play by an independent third party gaming expert, Mr Michael Shackleford ASA, who's Gaming Audit practice is located in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The results of this ongoing audit indicate that the random number generator is truly random and accordingly, the game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

To acknowledge this commitment to fairness, the "Certified Fair Gambling" seal has been applied to all games produced by Odds On Gaming
Note: The most recent CFG audits are undertaken on a monthly basis

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"monthly" basis?

Hopefully he'll be addressing this.

 

[spearmaster]

The Wiz stopped providing CFG seals/services some time ago - so this text is extremely old, not to mention the fact that Odds On ceased to exist sometime last year.

A housecleaning is definitely in order.

 

[sirius]

English Harbour were acquired in December 2005 by Leisure and Gaming PLC (VIP group). It seems only their Odds On sites were cheating (but obviously the software is now suspect for all) so it was probably something to to with this new company. I think Odds On still exist but their new software platform is called Vegas Technology.

It is even worse if these casinos are showing the Certified Fair Gaming Seal without any audits taking place. Even though they are a very bad idea and misleading, I don't think Wiz would let them show the seal without the audits taking place so I can only assume they still are taking place. The English Harbour site actually says the audits are 'ongoing' and quite recently when Fire and Ice etc. were launched they had a press release about Wiz certifying them as fair with these seals (even though they probably hadn't been going for a month even).

 

[spearmaster]

Well, I'm willing to be wrong here - the last time I talked to Michael, I am sure he said he was no longer going to provide CFG services. But he may have decided to continue.

The Odds On site does still exist, so presumably they are still providing services to other customers. But I am unsure as to whether or not they are connected to Vegas Technology, despite what you may be seeing elsewhere.

Oh, and btw, Caruso, "cheat" has not been proven. Not that I'm all that inclined to disagree, but it *is* possible there was a glitch which caused these results, or even possibly, albeit remotely, that there was nothing wrong with the software and various players just happened to catch bad runs.

If you have proof, of course you're welcome to present it. Otherwise, we'll just go on the evidence shown here in this thread that something definitely does not look right but we don't know why.

Strong suspicions of a non-random game? You can bet your mammy on that...

 

[mikepipe]

english harbour facing serious trouble?

Only one remark:
Jeessus!
Reading some of the new threads (especially this one) these days is even more exciting than gambling itself!
Wot a great forum! thanks to all of you and to the MEISTER for having built and won such a community.

 

[thelawnet]

Well, I'm willing to be wrong here - the last time I talked to Michael, I am sure he said he was no longer going to provide CFG services. But he may have decided to continue.

The Odds On site does still exist, so presumably they are still providing services to other customers. But I am unsure as to whether or not they are connected to Vegas Technology, despite what you may be seeing elsewhere.

Oh, and btw, Caruso, "cheat" has not been proven. Not that I'm all that inclined to disagree, but it *is* possible there was a glitch which caused these results, or even possibly, albeit remotely, that there was nothing wrong with the software and various players just happened to catch bad runs.

No, that is not possible.

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

0.0000000000000019

So the fact that the software was cheating is a fact as anything can be.

 

[soflat]

No, that is not possible.

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

0.0000000000000019

So the fact that the software was cheating is a fact as anything can be.

It was definitely not a random (fair) game.

We just don't know for sure if they were deliberately cheating or not (unless you can calculate that with Excel too).

 

[Casinomeister]

Man, this is one hell of a thread to tackle - especially if most of your math related brain cells are fried like mine

Nevertheless, I just gave M. Shackelford a call - no one home - so I popped him off an email to see if he can fill us in on what's up with Oddson and the certification. He's a member of the forum, so perhaps he'll be able to jump in here and give us an expert opinion on this whole thing.

On thing I'm very concerned about is the certification. If it's not happening, (like it's posted on the casinos' website) I won't be a happy camper.

 

[Simmo!]

It was definitely not a random (fair) game.

We just don't know for sure if they were deliberately cheating or not (unless you can calculate that with Excel too).

Soflat is right. You may feel "cheated", it looks *very* suspicious, and it wasn't a random game. But the fact is we can only speculate as to why this came about. Yes it's incredibly fishy, but if you took this to a court of law claiming it was a deliberate "cheat" with the "proof" presented in this thread, you'll be in there for about 10 minutes. At best you'll get a ruling that it was an unfair game, but even then, do we know that EH state the gamble is supposed to be 50/50? Or have we just assumed that? (no, I really don't know)

Issues like this require a balanced view, not an emotional one, if they are to be taken anywhere. That's no sleight on you TLN, as I think this is one of the most interesting threads in a long time, and for me personally, I won't be playing here.

 

[caruso]

Oh, and btw, Caruso, "cheat" has not been proven. Not that I'm all that inclined to disagree, but it *is* possible there was a glitch which caused these results, or even possibly, albeit remotely, that there was nothing wrong with the software and various players just happened to catch bad runs.

This is categorically NOT a freak run, remotely possible. If I've read those decimal places correctly - and the only reason it's hard is there are so many zeros - then the probability is similar to the probablility of being dealt 11 consecutive blackjacks. I would guess that noone in the history of blackjack has ever witnessed such an event:

522 wins out of 1537 hands = 0.0000000000000019

11 consecutive blackjacks = 0.0000000000000035

...both of which are around the one in five hundred trillion mark.

In context: if you played 10 hands of video poker a minute for 95 million years, you would achieve a sample size big enough to "expect" an event like this.

So it'd be fair to say this was no "freak run".

 

[caruso]

At best you'll get a ruling that it was an unfair game, but even then, do we know that EH state the gamble is supposed to be 50/50? Or have we just assumed that? (no, I really don't know)

Yes, we do know, and no, we didn't just assume that. I posted it above, but I'll do it again for ya'.

The results of this ongoing audit indicate that the random number generator is truly random and accordingly, the game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

The claim may be bogus, Shack may no longer audit anything, etc ad inf / nauseum. Nonetheless, the claim is thus. English Harbour claims to deal a fair game. English Harbour does not deal a fair game.

 

[thelawnet]

Soflat is right. You may feel "cheated", it looks *very* suspicious, and it wasn't a random game. But the fact is we can only speculate as to why this came about. Yes it's incredibly fishy, but if you took this to a court of law claiming it was a deliberate "cheat" with the "proof" presented in this thread, you'll be in there for about 10 minutes.

I hardly think so. There is absolute proof (nothing can proven, but this is more certain than any evidence under which people are found guilty of crimes - we are talking about trilllion trillion trillions to one against) that English Harbour did not provide a game where the odds provided to the player did not match the odds implied by the game rules. This would be illegal under Las Vegas law, and a casino operating in such a way would be fined thousands of dollars on the basis of evidence no more solid than this. The only thing which we don't know is how the unfair game came to be in place, but that's not as important as the fact of the cheating.

At best you'll get a ruling that it was an unfair game, but even then, do we know that EH state the gamble is supposed to be 50/50? Or have we just assumed that? (no, I really don't know)

The help says "if the card you have selected is greater value than the dealers then you will DOUBLE your winnings".

According to them, their software "is truly random and accordingly, the game play results conform with accepted statistical norms." So #1, under reputable jurisidictional law it is illegal to provide a game where the odds implied by the game (drawing a higher card) do not match the true odds, and #2, they say that their games are random and that clearly is untrue.

 

[spearmaster]

So it'd be fair to say this was no "freak run".

I did say "albeit remotely" Nevertheless, it still exists within the realm of possibility... barely...

No, that is not possible.

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

0.0000000000000019

So the fact that the software was cheating is a fact as anything can be.

See above If you replace the words "cheating is a" with "non-random is as close to" I can't argue.

People do sometimes make errors in coding. But that being said, they're going to have to climb a very tall mountain to make that one stick in this case.

 

[thelawnet]

This is categorically NOT a freak run, remotely possible. If I've read those decimal places correctly

You didn't.

I said

522 wins out of 1537 trials has according to Excel a zero chance of occurrence. Of course it is non-zero, but the number is so small, Excel cannot calculate it. The best it can do is for 617 wins, when the possibility is

In other words, 522 wins is such a tiny number Excel is not remotely capable of calculating it. The number, 1.9*10^-12 is for 617 wins, being the smallest Excel can handle. 522 wins is orders of magnitude less likely than even that tiny number. At a guess you are looking at at least 20 zeros before the number.

I do not have any suitable software installed to calculate this number, but I daresay someone does and can oblige us with the tininess of the number.

 

[spearmaster]

The results of this ongoing audit indicate that the random number generator is truly random and accordingly, the game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

Come to think of it, this statement is bogus. Just because a random number generator is truly random does not necessarily mean that game play results conform with accepted statistical norms.

I can still use the number generated by the RNG and apply it to a formula which says "If (RNG>.00000000001) {dealercard="Ace";}"... LOL...

 

[GrandMaster]

In other words, 522 wins is such a tiny number Excel is not remotely capable of calculating it. The number, 1.9*10^-12 is for 617 wins, being the smallest Excel can handle. 522 wins is orders of magnitude less likely than even that tiny number. At a guess you are looking at at least 20 zeros before the number.

I do not have any suitable software installed to calculate this number, but I daresay someone does and can oblige us with the tininess of the number.

The probability of winning 522 or fewer out of 1537 trials is 4.9*10^-37. It is the same order of magnitude as winning the lottery with a single ticket 5 weeks in a row.

 

[thelawnet]

The probability of winning 522 or fewer out of 1537 trials is 4.9*10^-37. It is the same order of magnitude as winning the lottery with a single ticket 5 weeks in a row.

For comparison, there are apparently 7.5x10^18 grains of sand on every beach in the world.

So this is as likely as randomly picking a grain of sand from every beach in the world, and getting the same one three times.

In other words, it ain't gonna happen - with 4.6*10^17 seconds since the big bang, the chances are still remote if you tried a billion times per second since the beginning of time.

 

[caruso]

You didn't.

I said...

My consecutive blackjacks comparison was based on the figure given as the most excel could calculate, though I noted that it couldn't calculate this particularly extreme one.

Anyway, whatever the figure, this is blatantly not a freak occurance. That much is certain at this point.

 

[Macgyver]

The help says "if the card you have selected is greater value than the dealers then you will DOUBLE your winnings".

This was in response to the "how can we be sure it's 50/50?" question, and I'd like to ask something about it. Bear with me/humor me/laugh at me, but it's something that I've been thinking about.

When you double, you have the dealer's card face up and four cards to pick from, correct? If the card you pick is higher than the dealer's, than you double your winnings (hence the name).

Doesn't that mean, though, that you have a 1 in 4 chance of picking a higher card (which isn't 50/50)? I know that's over-simplifying things a lot, but it's a start to this nagging question. Not to mention that you have to factor in the possibility that if the dealer has a King, you only have a 4 in 51 chance (deck is missing a King and only one of the four Aces can give you a win).

Does that make sense?

 

[JohnGalt]

Soflat is right. You may feel "cheated", it looks *very* suspicious, and it wasn't a random game. But the fact is we can only speculate as to why this came about. Yes it's incredibly fishy, but if you took this to a court of law claiming it was a deliberate "cheat" with the "proof" presented in this thread, you'll be in there for about 10 minutes. At best you'll get a ruling that it was an unfair game, but even then, do we know that EH state the gamble is supposed to be 50/50? Or have we just assumed that? (no, I really don't know)

Issues like this require a balanced view, not an emotional one, if they are to be taken anywhere. That's no sleight on you TLN, as I think this is one of the most interesting threads in a long time, and for me personally, I won't be playing here.

In America (and the UK) there is a doctrine known as res ipsa loquitor, or, "the thing speaks for itself". In fact it is statistical in nature. Given that the software is cheating, what is the probability that it is cheating because the casino deliberately manipulated it? If that is > 50%, you win on summary judgment.

I'm not sure it matter if they did it deliberately, since they re responsible for what their software does. But I'd say this evidence may well be enough to win a court case, on summary judgment. So you might be there for 10 minutes, at which point you will already have won!

It would depend to some extent on the nature of the programming... how likely is such an error to occur by accident? My guess is not likely at all. And in a court case you could have a few expert coders testify to that and that would be it, you'd win. No direct evidence of the casino's actions is needed.

But in this "court" of public opinion, I suppose we could use one or two knowledgeable people speaking to this likelihood before we can out and out brand them deliberate cheaters.

 

[Aindreas_Daoc]

This was in response to the "how can we be sure it's 50/50?" question, and I'd like to ask something about it. Bear with me/humor me/laugh at me, but it's something that I've been thinking about.

When you double, you have the dealer's card face up and four cards to pick from, correct? If the card you pick is higher than the dealer's, than you double your winnings (hence the name).

Doesn't that mean, though, that you have a 1 in 4 chance of picking a higher card (which isn't 50/50)? I know that's over-simplifying things a lot, but it's a start to this nagging question. Not to mention that you have to factor in the possibility that if the dealer has a King, you only have a 4 in 51 chance (deck is missing a King and only one of the four Aces can give you a win).

Does that make sense?

It doesn't matter whether there are 4 cards to pick from, or all remaining 51: an unseen card is an unseen card, assuming that those 4 are picked out on random.

Pretend you're playing the game with a real deck of cards: Pick one card out and look at it. You need to find a card that is bigger than what you looked at first. Does it matter if you pick one out right away, or if you pick 4 first (face down), then pick one out of those 4? Of course not.

Only the upcard matters. Yes, when you pick out an ace first, then you don't have a chance of winning. However, this is balance when picking a deuce first where you can't lose.

 

[nektar4d]

another fake seal or not?

Issues like this require a balanced view, not an emotional one, if they are to be taken anywhere. That's no sleight on you TLN, as I think this is one of the most interesting threads in a long time, and for me personally, I won't be playing here.

I haven't played in EH so I cannot be considered emotional...well, in such balance, I could say that the whole story is horryfying for me as a player!
Very-very interesting thread indeed and kudos to "thelawnet" for discovering and projecting the case in public. Yes another casino I won't try also personally.
Finally, I am curious if this thread is enough evidence for entering the casino (or the "superior control" software ) to the rogues section?

Another smaller detail:
On the main page of their site they have the seal of GOM barf with an award for:
"VEGAS TECHNOLOGY - Voted the "Top New Online Casino" Software 2005!"
I searched at GOM 2005 awards page (Link Removed (invalid URL)) and couldn't find anything like that.
Am I missing something or is it another possible fake seal?

 

[Macgyver]

It doesn't matter whether there are 4 cards to pick from, or all remaining 51: an unseen card is an unseen card, assuming that those 4 are picked out on random.

Pretend you're playing the game with a real deck of cards: Pick one card out and look at it. You need to find a card that is bigger than what you looked at first. Does it matter if you pick one out right away, or if you pick 4 first (face down), then pick one out of those 4? Of course not.

Only the upcard matters. Yes, when you pick out an ace first, then you don't have a chance of winning. However, this is balance when picking a deuce first where you can't lose.

OK, I can understand that reasoning ... but doesn't that still mean that every time you double, you stand a 4 in 51 chance of winning rather than a 1 in 2 chance?

 

[soflat]

OK, I can understand that reasoning ... but doesn't that still mean that every time you double, you stand a 4 in 51 chance of winning rather than a 1 in 2 chance?

No. Before any cards are turned over you have a 1 in 2 chance (ignoring ties) because you can only turn over one card for yourself (the other down cards don't matter; they might as well still be in the deck after you pick).

Once the dealer card is shown, then the odds change since there are only 51 cards left and you have to pick one to beat that upcard.

 

[Sodax77]

...Am I missing something or is it another possible fake seal?...

Well...
Top New Casino - Winner
Caribbean Gold

"Caribbean Gold Casino is owned by the English Harbour Group"
Link Removed (invalid URL)

But...

After i checked their VeriSign-logo, i found:

SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM is a
VeriSign Secure Site


Security remains the primary concern of on-line consumers. The VeriSign Secure Site Program allows you to learn more about web sites you visit before you submit any confidential information. Please verify that the information below is consistent with the site you are visiting.


Name SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM
Status Expired
Validity Period 25-FEB-04 - 13-MAR-06
Server ID
Information Country = AG
State = Antigua
Locality = St. John's
Organization = EH New Ventures Gaming Inc.
Organizational Unit = not available
Organizational Unit = Terms of use at www.verisign.com/RPA (c)01
Common Name = secure.englishharbour.com


If the information is correct, you may submit sensitive data (e.g., credit card numbers) to this site with the assurance that:
This site has a VeriSign Secure Server ID.
VeriSign has verified the organizational name and that EH NEW VENTURES GAMING INC. has the proof of right to use it.
This site legitimately runs under the auspices of EH NEW VENTURES GAMING INC..
All information sent to this site, if in an SSL session, is encrypted, protecting against disclosure to third parties.


To ensure that this is a legitimate VeriSign Secure Site, make sure that:

The original URL of the site you are visiting comes from SECURE.ENGLISHHARBOUR.COM.
The URL of this page is Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .
The status of the Server ID is Valid.

Also:
SuperSlots - Status Expired
Caribbean Gold Casino - Status Expired
Silver Dollar Casino - Status Expired
All Poker Casino - Status Expired
Millionaire Casino - Status Expired