A Challenge to All Casinos

[falderal]

A very simple challenge to all Casino Managers:

Publish your odds tables for each and every slot machine.

I bet we'd all like to see exactly what our chances are of getting three cherries or hitting the big one. Come on, I dare you - let us in on this big secret.

A further challenge to Price Waterhouse Coopers:

Show us your math.

Come on, it's nothing any schoolteacher wouldn't ask for: how did you get your answer? Is bonus money really played through the same software and settings? Is an aggregate made of uncashable bonus winnings and real cash winnings? Come on - I double dare ya' !!

Accusations have flown for years folks, now's your chance to dispel the myths - or prove the conspiracy theories. Are you up to the challenge?

 

[dickens1298]

Why would they? If they could seduce players to part with their money with vague T&Cs, poor reputations, or incredibly high WRs, then I'm sure they believe that there is truly a sucker born every minute. And guess what - many players are proving them true.

A very simple challenge to all Casino Managers:

Publish your odds tables for each and every slot machine.

I bet we'd all like to see exactly what our chances are of getting three cherries or hitting the big one. Come on, I dare you - let us in on this big secret.

A further challenge to Price Waterhouse Coopers:

Show us your math.

Come on, it's nothing any schoolteacher wouldn't ask for: how did you get your answer? Is bonus money really played through the same software and settings? Is an aggregate made of uncashable bonus winnings and real cash winnings? Come on - I double dare ya' !!

Accusations have flown for years folks, now's your chance to dispel the myths - or prove the conspiracy theories. Are you up to the challenge?

 

[largeeyes]

You are asking them to do something a brick and mortar casino would not be expected to do. Why should they be held to higher standards than a highly regulated casino?

 

[chalupa]

Actually brick & mortar casinos generally are regulated as to minimum payoffs for any slot machine.

And many B&M casinos do advertise special "99% payback" or similar machines, and are then required by law to back that up.

I think a smart marketing move by an online casino would be to do the same thing. Do away with gimmicky bonuses, and simply offer good games with good payouts and fast cashouts. Wow, what a concept.

An online casino should be able to provide good games very profitably compared to a B&M casino given their much lower overhead. They could lower their overhead even further by firing half their customer support staff after getting rid of bonuses and the associated confusing terms and conditions.

On the other hand, as dickens points outs... I would imagine the prevailing attitude right now is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[caruso]

A further challenge to Price Waterhouse Coopers:

Show us your math.

LOL, There is no math. PWC have been faking "payout reports" for online casinos for about 10 years now. This is one cosy relationship of five-figure back-handers you won't see disturbed any time soon.

 

[Black21Jack]

LOL, There is no math. PWC have been faking "payout reports" for online casinos for about 10 years now. This is one cosy relationship of five-figure back-handers you won't see disturbed any time soon.

I would like to see your solid evidence that this is happening. You must have documentation, as well as relationships with 'insiders' at the company who have been offering you information to be able to make such a claim. You should not be keeping this evidence secret, this is huge. You could bring about the downfall of a major corporation. I strongly suggest that you inform the relevant authorities of your discoveries.

 

[gfkostas]

Black21Jack is right.You should bust them up caruso.

 

[falderal]

.

Dickens1298: Why would they? If they could seduce players to part with their money with vague T&Cs, poor reputations, or incredibly high WRs, then I'm sure they believe that there is truly a sucker born every minute.

Casinos currently compete with each other for business. I'm offering a new arena. The suckers will likely ignore the odds in favor of big bonuses anyway.

largeeyes: Why should they be held to higher standards than a highly regulated casino?

In a free market, any business is held to the customer's standards, however fickle.

chalupa:I would imagine the prevailing attitude right now is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It all depends on the definition of "broke". I suggest that although things are working fine for the casinos, there is, to my knowledge, no truly independant or governmental auditing system to ensure the accuracy of casino payout claims. Online casinos situate themselves in locations where such responsibilities do not exist, or are not enforced.

In general, I am only suggesting the disclosure of verifiable, non-prejudicial information. Nothing different than is required in cereal-box contests. If it's required for Toucan Sam and his Froot Loops, then why not Froot Loot and Microgaming?

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

Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[chalupa]

If it's required for Toucan Sam and his Froot Loops, then why not Froot Loot and Microgaming?

Because Toucan Sam is watched by his uncle of the same name.

 

[caruso]

PWC have been called on to produce evidence to back up their "verification" claims - if not the actual processes which lead to the reports, then at least the actual figures and the mathematical tests used in the processes. Apparently, this isn't on their agenda, or the wall of silence would have been broken at some point. Something would have been offered if there was anything to offer, particularly with the extra exposure offered by Ecogra. Yet we have nothing - because there is nothing.

I've no idea how much Microgaming, Boss or whoever else pay for this corrupt service; I guess the figure is greater than $9999 and under $100,000 per casino, so five-figures is a reasonable approximation - but that can only be speculation since noone from MG, Boss or PWC is about to tell me.

 

[jetset]

PWC have been called on to produce evidence to back up their "verification" claims - if not the actual processes which lead to the reports, then at least the actual figures and the mathematical tests used in the processes. Apparently, this isn't on their agenda, or the wall of silence would have been broken at some point. Something would have been offered if there was anything to offer, particularly with the extra exposure offered by Ecogra. Yet we have nothing - because there is nothing.

I've no idea how much Microgaming, Boss or whoever else pay for this corrupt service; I guess the figure is greater than $9999 and under $100,000 per casino, so five-figures is a reasonable approximation - but that can only be speculation since noone from MG, Boss or PWC is about to tell me.

I was going to leave this ancient and contentious argument alone in the interest of forum peace, but once again these unbacked speculations by Caruso oblige me to point out that they are just that - unbacked speculation.

PwC is big enough to answer for themselves if they want to, so I'm not going to argue their stance that their processes are proprietary and specialised, for which they receive commercial reward. I too would like to see them come here and blow some of these radical assumptions out of the water, but it's their business and their decision on whether to do it.

And I don't believe Caruso has answered Black21Jack's relevant questions here:

QUOTE: I would like to see your solid evidence that this is happening. You must have documentation, as well as relationships with 'insiders' at the company who have been offering you information to be able to make such a claim. You should not be keeping this evidence secret, this is huge. You could bring about the downfall of a major corporation. I strongly suggest that you inform the relevant authorities of your discoveries. UNQUOTE

 

[tim5ny]

PWC have been called on to produce evidence to back up their "verification" claims - if not the actual processes which lead to the reports, then at least the actual figures and the mathematical tests used in the processes. Apparently, this isn't on their agenda, or the wall of silence would have been broken at some point. Something would have been offered if there was anything to offer, particularly with the extra exposure offered by Ecogra. Yet we have nothing - because there is nothing.

I've no idea how much Microgaming, Boss or whoever else pay for this corrupt service; I guess the figure is greater than $9999 and under $100,000 per casino, so five-figures is a reasonable approximation - but that can only be speculation since noone from MG, Boss or PWC is about to tell me.

Maybe it's time to close the casino accounts. Doesn't sound like you're having fun anymore.

 

[GrandMaster]

A very simple challenge to all Casino Managers:

Publish your odds tables for each and every slot machine.

I bet we'd all like to see exactly what our chances are of getting three cherries or hitting the big one. Come on, I dare you - let us in on this big secret.

A further challenge to Price Waterhouse Coopers:

Show us your math.

Come on, it's nothing any schoolteacher wouldn't ask for: how did you get your answer? Is bonus money really played through the same software and settings? Is an aggregate made of uncashable bonus winnings and real cash winnings? Come on - I double dare ya' !!

Accusations have flown for years folks, now's your chance to dispel the myths - or prove the conspiracy theories. Are you up to the challenge?

You can analyze slot machines yourself, see

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

.

 

[Agamemnon]

Well, for what it's worth, I just wrote to PWC and asked them to explain their guidelines.
Let's see if they get off their throne and respond.

BTW I think that issuing this challenge is a great idea. Obviously, any casino that chooses so can withhold the data, but stating the data would make me more inclined to frequent a particular casino.
Also, it would settle an issue to which I've never received a satisfactory answer:
Take any given MG slot, say CabinFever, does it pay set up by the same percentages at any MG casino, or do operators have leeway with setting percentages?
Meeting this challenge would answer this question.

 

[winbig]

Not to mention that if reputable casinos started posting this (and backing it up), others will either have to follow suit or lose (new user) business, plain and simple.

 

[nafanny29]

It would be really interesting to find out exactly PWC check and analyse (assuming they do actually check the data )

Even if it turns out that they check every little detail it still wont stop the "rigged V fair" arguments which I can see going on until the end of time

 

[Agamemnon]

You can analyze slot machines yourself, see

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

.

OK. However duplicating this method would only give the result for your session. I'm not sure what would qualify as a sufficiently large sample.
I've had huge sessions culminating in a large win. Can I draw conclusions off that?
In the case of some of the more popular MG slots you have literally thousands of players gambling at any given moment. How does one define his sample?
Am I missing something?
I'd love to get your feedback Grandmaster as I often consider your arithmetic input definitive.

 

[Vesuvio]

They could lower their overhead even further by firing half their customer support staff after getting rid of bonuses and the associated confusing terms and conditions.

Careful - remember employing support staff is one of the few 'social benefits' of on-line casinos

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/search

 

[knowlesm]

I would like to see your solid evidence that this is happening. You must have documentation, as well as relationships with 'insiders' at the company who have been offering you information to be able to make such a claim. You should not be keeping this evidence secret, this is huge. You could bring about the downfall of a major corporation. I strongly suggest that you inform the relevant authorities of your discoveries.

And please PM me before you do that so I can find a new job first.

 

[falderal]

.

If you're implying that you're an employee of PWC, knowlesm, then I'm sure many here have some valid questions for you.

I'll get it going with:

1) Why not publish the means your numbers are derived?

2) If the software uses a true random number generator, then why would there be a risk in publishing it?

3) What government body or organization audits the calculations and certifications made by PWC?

 

[casino employee]

I think you'll find the issue of published payouts to be a moot point insofar that "payout percentages" don't have any relation as to the fairness of the software.

It's a popular misconception that attractive or reasonable-looking payout percentages suggest fair software play, but the two issues are not connected. And I think because acquiring documents from a third party to show the payouts is costly and not a seal of software fairness, many casinos have stopped publishing them.

Keep in mind that the auditing body simply confirms statistics provided to it by the casino. PWC or any other external auditor is not actually "testing" the software or encountering it at all. The published documents on sites simply verify information they receive from the casinos.

Although casinos have every interest in publishing the payouts anyway, there is no more transparency in an online casino revealing the payouts than a bricks and mortar casino doing the same - the gambler at either location doesn't "see" the auditing process before his eyes. Ultimately, he doesn't know how the casinos arrived at those percentages.

 

[nafanny29]

I think you'll find the issue of published payouts to be a moot point insofar that "payout percentages" don't have any relation as to the fairness of the software.

It's a popular misconception that attractive or reasonable-looking payout percentages suggest fair software play, but the two issues are not connected. And I think because acquiring documents from a third party to show the payouts is costly and not a seal of software fairness, many casinos have stopped publishing them.

Keep in mind that the auditing body simply confirms statistics provided to it by the casino. PWC or any other external auditor is not actually "testing" the software or encountering it at all. The published documents on sites simply verify information they receive from the casinos.

Although casinos have every interest in publishing the payouts anyway, there is no more transparency in an online casino revealing the payouts than a bricks and mortar casino doing the same - the gambler at either location doesn't "see" the auditing process before his eyes. Ultimately, he doesn't know how the casinos arrived at those percentages.

Well that says it all doesnt it.

 

[caruso]

What CasinoEmployee says is undoubtedly correct, but it is NOT what is CLAIMED, unfortunately.

Keep in mind that the auditing body simply confirms statistics provided to it by the casino. PWC or any other external auditor is not actually "testing" the software or encountering it at all. The published documents on sites simply verify information they receive from the casinos.

Time was this was the only thing they claimed, my friend - rubber-stamping pieces of paper sent from the casinos for a mighty fee. I don't have a problem with this because it's clearly a worthless exercise and requires no particular validating - confirmation of a 97.5% payout is not startling or contentious.

However, since then they've upped the stakes. No longer do they claim no more than an exercise in whitewashing figures; now, through Ecogra, PWC claims to audit the software for fairness. I can't be bothered to find the page in question right now, but this isn't news - they've been claiming this for about two years now. I believe the process is known as "Egap", though I forget what those initials stand for.

Repeat: PWC claims to test the software for FAIRNESS, in much the same way as the disastrous Online Casino Analyzer experiment (results analysis) - remember that? All the portals were up in arms with "show us the proof", "show us how you do it", "what is you methodology?", because the OCA claimed Microgaming was cheating. PWC claims Microgaming is NOT cheating - so all of a sudden no proof was required! And why? Because PWC is a "reputable" auditor!

LMAO. In spite of his GARGANTUAN disaster with the OCA, I would trust the felow behind it about 200 times more than I'd trust an audit organization being paid mega bucks by casinos for posting these claims. LOL, long live "independent" verification.

This was the mighty double-standard: when we heard Microgaming was cheating, all the portals needed evidence of the claimant's underwear measurements; when we heard Microgaming were NOT cheating...oh well, thats OK then. No evidence required. Must be true because...well...Microgaming...err...ahem...how can I best put this?...they're kind of...err...our...they...err...

'Nough said.

There is not ONE shread of evidence that PWC do anything more than issue payout reports, as Casino Employee suggested. Yet they claim to test for fairness and we are supposed to buy it, hook, line and sinker. Ecogra "out source" this service - they have no more insider knowledge than the rest of us regarding the processes, and if they did...well, they're just as tight-lipped about it as PWC. However, I'm confident they do not, as they claim. NOBODY outside PWC have any knowledge of this, or any evidence of it. Yet we are supposed to believe them.

Gimme a break. Wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[falderal]

.

Coffee is now being served in the forum...

Thanks for joining in, casino employee.

The statistics provided by the casino need only be an aggregate of all figures in order to verify a payout of a given percentage. That is, that they would only need the total wager and total return through any machine. If the figures are honest, and players are using real money, this would reflect as an accurate number at PWC; however, some feel that the software recognizes the difference between "real" and "bonus" money, and gives a much higher return on bonus money.

It wouldn't take much of a difference from existing software, which already records every detail of one's playthrough - some software even makes the playthrough transparent and available.

A few months ago, I was playing Cleopatra on bonus money when a freakish run of random bonuses led me to over $6,000. Naturally they disqualified me AFTER THE FACT (despite surely having the programability to disqualify me beforehand). But I wondered whether that would show in their stats to PWC as a series of wins - remembering that PWC does NOT care whether the payout was actualized.

I further wondered about all those bonuses that have withdrawal caps. What happens if I win $100, but the withdrawal cap is $30? Is that $70 considered "payout" to PWC? If you can't take it out, is it still a win?

If I made a deposit of $50, and got a matching bonus of $50, then played through the $100 once, and only won a total of $49, would the casino convey to PWC that there were $50 in deposits and $49 in payout - leading to a whopping 98% payout; or would they present the more accurate figure of $100 yielding $49, or a payout of only 49%?. Without rigid standards and qualifiers at every phase of collection and calculation, statistics are quite vulnerable to manipulation, and totally incomparable with other stats similarly derived. But don't just take MY word for it...

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.(Homer Simpson)

 

[philipfromparis]

A very simple challenge to all Casino Managers:

Publish your odds tables for each and every slot machine.


A further challenge to Price Waterhouse Coopers:

Show us your math.

Well, having played for a few years on the net, i would like to bring my contribution to this very interesting thread as many. Publishing odds tables for each and every slot machine wont give you more chances to win a jackpot or wont increase your confidence in such or such place. First of all, because everything can be interpreted with numbers and above all, no control can really be operated by a third party, whoever it is.

I think one should forget mathemathical calculations and probabilities when gambling on line simply because it has nothing to do with cartesian matters. But lets try to do a little mathematics, hoping this will help me to make myself understadable :

Imagine that we were 10 people playing at the same time in the same place during one hour with all 100 USD credits in our casino account. Imagine also that no player has ever come to that place before us. No matter what games we play during this hour but we, the ten people, are happy to play there as weve read previously a report of an audit company who stated that in this place, players can expect a 90% payout. After having played for thirty minutes, I manage to bring my account to an amount of 900 USD (how lucky i am !)and decide to cash-in. You know what it means my friends ! It means that, if no other player join us during this hour, the nine others are to loose their 100 USD and i do not need to be a physician or a seer to give your this certitude ! Effectively, to pay my 900 USD winnings, the casino (or the software used) has to take the money to other players and of course needs to pay itself (900USD for me (or the player), 100 USD for the casino) This is what means a 90% payout rate !

This brings me to this conclusion : thinking youve got one chance out of two to double your stake on the roulette playing red or black is valid in based land casinos but is just an illusion (imagination ) in on line places. Sometimes, this chance will be more than one out of two, sometimes less, depending on how appears the casino balance at a precise time !

Definitely, and the ultimate point to consider when playing online would be for me the number of people frequenting the place and betting with real money. This is the only argument that should be taken into account for me. I saw it in some places, and it is the right way i think ! But please, stop with probabilities , calcultations and so on : the chance of having a RF is not one out of 40000 ? as read here and there. If the casino doesnt have the money to pay it to you at the time you are playing, you will never have it and your chances then are less than zero.

At the end of the day, it is certain that on line gambling is a profitable business for the major actors in the place, and oppositely to what we usually think, there is not so much competitors in the arena to share a billion dollars wordwild market. That explains why we, players, need a complete transparency in our relations with online gambling places. Weve not come to this yet but we are not far from it, indubitably thanks to places like Bryan s place in a way. However, I had a dream. I had a dream that we could one day trust PCW, CWP or WCP audit reports, and then I realised that, except for state regulated places, every online casinos operate offshore. This means in countries or places where local right does not apply because the activity doesnt exist in such countries or places.

Philipfromparis

 

[thelawnet]

LOL, There is no math. PWC have been faking "payout reports" for online casinos for about 10 years now. This is one cosy relationship of five-figure back-handers you won't see disturbed any time soon.

Ok, so you are prepared to libel a multi-billion dollar partnership (PWC) with no evidence? And why? Because you believe that reports of 97% payouts are rigged? And because what? Because making 3 cents in every dollar wagered isn't enough to guarantee a profit in a business where that same dollar will often be wagered 20-30 times, meaning that the casino have taken ALL of its customers' money, with no cheating required.

If you are going to come up with a ridiculous conspiracy theory, then this one is not it... Why do you need to cheat when the numbers that the casinos are giving out point to HUGE profits? No other business can take its customers' dollar again and again and repeatedly take 3% off it, in return for nothing more than a few CPU cycles and some pretty graphics.

And you think they need to cheat? And you are libelling an accountancy firm by suggesting that they would risk their reputation and billions of dollars in return for a few lousy bribes from some two-bit casinos?? Why? Why, when the numbers that have been published already point to massive huge profits from these casinos?

Your accusations go beyond stupid.

 

[thelawnet]

Imagine that we were 10 people playing at the same time in the same place during one hour with all 100 USD credits in our casino account. Imagine also that no player has ever come to that place before us. No matter what games we play during this hour but we, the ten people, are happy to play there as weve read previously a report of an audit company who stated that in this place, players can expect a 90% payout. After having played for thirty minutes, I manage to bring my account to an amount of 900 USD (how lucky i am !)and decide to cash-in. You know what it means my friends ! It means that, if no other player join us during this hour, the nine others are to loose their 100 USD and i do not need to be a physician or a seer to give your this certitude ! Effectively, to pay my 900 USD winnings, the casino (or the software used) has to take the money to other players and of course needs to pay itself (900USD for me (or the player), 100 USD for the casino) This is what means a 90% payout rate !

That would give a 90% payout that is true, but it does not mean that the casino must do that. Firstly, nearly all reputable casinos use software that is provided by a third-party vendor. They have little or no control over it, and probably do not have access to the source code.

In your scenario if I won $900, 9 other people would have to lose $100. This does not reflect the realities of actual casinos.

In a real casino, I win $900, the casino does not care. The nature of sampling is that the larger the sample, the less effect individual wins have. Let us discount your fallacious example, and look at the larger sample that a real casino would have. Further, let us imagine that your win was not $900, but $90,000 (by increasing the amount we can show that your suggestion is wrong). Given that online gambling revenues are roughly $90 billion per annum, let us suppose that a given (small) casino has 1/1000 of this as revenue, that is $90 million per year.

Now assuming that that $90 million of revenue is $90 million in deposits, and each deposit is wagered 20 times. That gives total betting of $1.8 billion. Given that the payout is 97%, they are making $54 million in profit, prior to paying their operating costs.

Now tell me why you think that they need to rig things. Every single game in the casino has a built in advantage for the house. Even if you give the players a $90,000 head-start, with sufficient wagering this will become a tiny blip, because we are talking about millions of dollars in wagering.

So the casinos have no need to try and balance wins against losses, becomes the nature of a house edge and a large sample will quickly offset that.

This brings me to this conclusion : thinking youve got one chance out of two to double your stake on the roulette playing red or black is valid in based land casinos but is just an illusion (imagination ) in on line places. Sometimes, this chance will be more than one out of two, sometimes less, depending on how appears the casino balance at a precise time !

Definitely, and the ultimate point to consider when playing online would be for me the number of people frequenting the place and betting with real money. This is the only argument that should be taken into account for me. I saw it in some places, and it is the right way i think ! But please, stop with probabilities , calcultations and so on : the chance of having a RF is not one out of 40000 ? as read here and there. If the casino doesnt have the money to pay it to you at the time you are playing, you will never have it and your chances then are less than zero.

Once again, the majority of gamblers do not seem to understand the activity they are participating in. I wouldn't play tennis if I did not understand the ruls of the game.

If a casino does not have the money they are unlikely to be operating as a casino. They do not write their own software, they are largely governed by what the software manufacturer gives to them. Any casino is likely to have at least $1 million for just this kind of event (somebody betting $50 on 10-play VP and getting a pat Royal Flush), and they will be quite happy to pay it out, because they know that randomness will do its own work, and the casino business model means that a profit over the long term (although not every single day) is guaranteed.

There is no need for online casinos to operate any differently from B&M casinos - both want people to win to sucker the rest of the gamblers in; and they realize what you seem not to, namely that 1 person geting a Royal Flush has no effect on their long-term profits, provided they have sufficient customers and wagering to reduce variance below their expected profit....

Broadly speaking, if casino A has $1m in wagering a day, casino B that has $4m in wagering per day will have four times the expected profit, but only twice the risk in terms of variance (a few people getting lucky). If you feel that the casino is too small and the action they are getting is not enough for them to afford natural variance, DON'T PLAY THERE. But certainly for any casino that has good turnover has NO REASON to operate under anything other than natural randomness, and to sit back and count the money that games designed to take money from the players give them.

 

[Agamemnon]

Reality check:
PWC does not doctor data.
It's like saying Microsoft has done a deal with online casinos by appropriately tweaking their OS in order to make cheating easier.
I've contacted them to get some sort of responce on the principle of Ceasar's wife etc. and -I admit- with a little tongue in cheek towards some previous posts, but come on people:
Let's not forget that it's the casinos (dwarves in comparison to PWC) that try to gain credibility by associating themselves with PWC. I've noticed that a few used to have PWC's logo on their front pages and now have a logo reading: 'Reviewed by independent auditors". I don't know the details but if I were a gambling man I'd bet that they were asked to remove the firm's name probably BY PWC . In point of fact I've noticed that some of these casinos use the same Script when writing the phrase "Reviewed By independent auditors" that's used by PWC in their name. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.


I think we should separate the two issues here and now.
It's one thing to ask casino operators to give slot machine data and it's a different track to insinuate PWC is somehow involved in shady deals.
In fact I believe that not separating them only makes the challenge towards casino operators weaker by making us all sound like we're on a soapbox in Hyde Park.
So,
Casino Operators: Publish your slot machine data! If you do, I might play at your casinos.

Just my take.
I'll get off the soapbox now.

 

[knowlesm]

If you're implying that you're an employee of PWC, knowlesm, then I'm sure many here have some valid questions for you.

I'll get it going with:

1) Why not publish the means your numbers are derived?

2) If the software uses a true random number generator, then why would there be a risk in publishing it?

3) What government body or organization audits the calculations and certifications made by PWC?

I saw the PwC logo at one of the places I play, was intrigued, and clicked on it. It brought up a picture of a document signed by PwC South Africa saying that the software was fair, blah blah blah.

Yeah, I do work for PwC, but in the US. I don't work in audit (i'm an actuary) and didn't have any idea we even did this kind of work. Unfortunately, I don't have answers to any of the questions you asked.

I realize that's not much help...just wanted to add a little levity to the thread. I will say that there's a large emphasis on integrity within PwC and I'm proud to work here. All of the public audit firms rely on maintaining pristine reputations in order to develop public trust and stay in business.

 

[falderal]

.

"I'd trade it all in for just a little bit more."(Monty Burns)

Old style casinos actually had been caught "skimming", which was used to reduce taxes or cheat shareholders. As I'm sure you'd agree, profits, large or small, are not a cure for greed, thelawnet.

As to any figures indicating profitability comfort, I am reminded of just how many casinos struggle to avoid paying out, particularly via carefully hidden policies or bonus rules. This lack of transparency can be for one reason only: to deceive the player into appearing at the casino. If profits are so strong, such common back-alley techniques would surely be more rare.

But what could they gain by hiding the fact that the bonus only applies to previous depositors? I mean, really, if the bonus is designed to "bring back" prior depositors, wouldn't they want to make that very visible?

Unless they want an army of "playthrough drones" who get uncashable bonuses and play them through, increasing the slots returns without increasing the actual deposit, leading to a statistical illusion of high percentage payouts.

Like this:

PWC would get a sheet that reads:

Total deposits: $100
Total payout: $97


PWC would be able to verify, without ethical risk, that according to the numbers provided there is a 97% payout.

I'm not suggesting that the use of playthrough drones is commonplace - or even exists at all - but without ANY rigid auditing system in place, similar deceitful methods are not a mere possibility, but a likelihood. This, sadly, is simply the nature of mankind.

I offer by means of proof, that file "sharing" software such as Napster, which helped millions make illegal copies of every form of data, had grown in popularity so quickly as to threaten a multi-billion dollar industry. When the cat is away, mice will play. There is no reason to expect differently in the online gambling industry, which tends to situate itself where both laws and law enforcement are at their weakest.

knowlesm: As an actuary, perhaps you can verify my numbers above, and see the inherent succeptibility to abuse in the above methodology. If PWC showed how the data was collected and processed, they would further distance themselves from corrupt reporting at the casino end.

I will note that years ago I too clicked on the links to PWC at several casinos - none of them worked!

 

[nafanny29]

From what ive read here PWC get sent data relating to payouts/deposits etc and then verify the payout percentage. Anyone with an aptitude for maths could "verify" it couldnt they? Guess it looks good to have a "certified by PWC" stamp on the front page.

But how does anyone know if the "data" is accurate in the first place?

And again from the above posts it seems that the "fairness" of the casino/RNG isnt even examined at all.

Or am I missing something here guys

 

[caruso]

I answered your question in my remarks directly following your last post.

BTW, I got my acronyms confused; it's not "EGAP", it's "TGTR" - for what that's worth, LOL.

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

The relevance of that page is that this work is ostensibly NOT undertaken by eCogra, but out-sourced to PWC. Jetset can confirm this, it's not a secret and we talked about it ages ago at WOL.

 

[ToucanSam]

If it's required for Toucan Sam and his Froot Loops, then why not Froot Loot and Microgaming?

Froot Loot ? where ? I,ll sue !!