Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet Keno Rigged

same_old

Dormant account
webmeister
PABaccred
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Location
Australia
Just in case you needed more reasons to not play there. The first link is to the thread at 2+2 that alleges the game isn't random. The Youtube video backs up this claim.

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


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


lol, doesnt surprise me at all.

I went and read that thread over at 2+2, you really got to take your hat off to guys like NOFX and all that effort they put in to bring things like this to the surface, and he doesnt even play keno or slots.

thanks for posting it here as it is more of a casino thing as opposed to poker itself and I see NOFX wanted to get a casino/keno forum invloved so that is great.

These guys are already on Bryans "not to touch" list so im not sure if he will take this one on, he may do for shits and giggles?

thanks for posting anyway Addict :thumbsup:
 

coenie

Non-Gambler
PABnonaccred
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Location
The Netherlands
It is probably like a slot with a set %RTP, i never would reveal a pattern if i found one, you can make serious money exploiting it ;)

I am gonne try to find a pattern with some other software with keno, intresting.:D



,Coenie
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
Great work from those guys.

It may be using a pseudo RNG but because the pattern is in the win/lose results and not the actual numbers drawn each round my view is that this may be a symptom of weighting that exists in slots as well but it becomes much more obvious in this Keno game since there are only 3 ways to win and 2 of those are statistically unlikely.
I am not a member of the forum but if this has not been discussed there I think it is something they might consider.
Certainly I can very easily replicate the same results while still generating random draws each round for example.

Also when they consider that the player loses less than with a fair Keno game I believe they are missing the point and it is the same point that is constantly missed here by people who insist the games are fair and unweighted.
That is that a game that guarantees a 96% return is far worse than a game that has a theoretical return of 95% because the player is guaranteed to lose.
 

AreYouCereus

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Location
Europe
Potential AP/Cereus RNG Issue - Keno

Hi Guys,

I Wanted to bring the following to your attention, perhaps some of the guys on here could carry out further and more conclusive investigations on a wider range of their games.

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


No surprise really, they are already in the rogue pit but this takes the proverbial biscuit!
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
Great work from those guys.

It may be using a pseudo RNG but because the pattern is in the win/lose results and not the actual numbers drawn each round my view is that this may be a symptom of weighting that exists in slots as well but it becomes much more obvious in this Keno game since there are only 3 ways to win and 2 of those are statistically unlikely.
I am not a member of the forum but if this has not been discussed there I think it is something they might consider.
Certainly I can very easily replicate the same results while still generating random draws each round for example.

Also when they consider that the player loses less than with a fair Keno game I believe they are missing the point and it is the same point that is constantly missed here by people who insist the games are fair and unweighted.
That is that a game that guarantees a 96% return is far worse than a game that has a theoretical return of 95% because the player is guaranteed to lose.

I think I understand what you are saying, for eg :- Say I deposit £100 at a casino play 100 spins at £1 a spin and end up with £10 I have a 10% return, but next deposit after my 100 spins I have £185, an overall return of 95% for both deposits, but a huge fluctuation between returns, which in turn means you have a good chance of making a nice profit if you make a deposit when the casino is balancing the books as such, I for the life of me cannot work out why people are more than happy playing at casinos that guarantee they lose 4% of their initial deposits, we all play to win ....yes?.

Does it not add upto that casinos that are regulated and show returns of around 95% -98% should also show percentages well below these to counter-balance the big payouts when they come?.
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
I think I understand what you are saying, for eg :- Say I deposit £100 at a casino play 100 spins at £1 a spin and end up with £10 I have a 10% return, but next deposit after my 100 spins I have £185, an overall return of 95% for both deposits, but a huge fluctuation between returns, which in turn means you have a good chance of making a nice profit if you make a deposit when the casino is balancing the books as such, I for the life of me cannot work out why people are more than happy playing at casinos that guarantee they lose 4% of their initial deposits, we all play to win ....yes?.

Does it not add upto that casinos that are regulated and show returns of around 95% -98% should also show percentages well below these to counter-balance the big payouts when they come?.

Regarding guaranteed RTP, if such a thing were true, it would probably work in a similar way to AWP games and it could be employed in any number of ways yet unlike a AWP game they would maintain randomness.

I very much doubt a Casino or software provider would be foolish enough to implement such a system though one never knows.

I think the more likely scenario is weighting which is basically just an advanced dynamic version of the above that retains randomness.
This would be very difficult to detect in slot games but in a game like Keno using a pseudo RNG it would stick out like a sore thumb if it were implemented poorly for the reasons I mention previously.
You couldn't cheat such a system though by forcing patterns because it would retain randomness.

Other than that it can only be a faulty RNG but if I have the facts correct, that the draws maintain randomness yet the results do not, then that can not be the case.

I'm not sure what you meant in your last paragraph. Are you talking about advertised theoretical RTP in paytables or audit results?
 

pokeraddict

Webmaster
Joined
Aug 3, 2002
Location
Las Vegas
The software company seemes to license the software and is not owned by AP/UB. I think someone in the know about casino software might want to do some more ivestigation. This might be an evil software provider as opposed to a purely lazy one.
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
Ah my bad, I meant the shorter term theoretical RTP, even though this is hard as there are no guidelines as to how much has to be wagered for a slot to reflect an accurate return percentage.

The theoretical RTP should be based on a complete cycle of all possible combinations with returns calculated from the paytable - along with any bonus or free spin rounds added in.
As to how that may reflect over shorter or longer periods of time would be down to the variance of the particular slot.
All the above assumes a completely fair game with no weighting.
 

refre

Senior lurker
PABnonaccred
PABnoaccred
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Location
.
The software company seemes to license the software and is not owned by AP/UB. I think someone in the know about casino software might want to do some more ivestigation. This might be an evil software provider as opposed to a purely lazy one.

The software provider seems to be Betsoft Gaming.
They license their games to a variety of casinos, among them are Party casino, Sportsbook.com and MrGreen.

Had a quick look at MrGreen, it seems they don't have this particular game.
Don't know about the rest though.


Freddy
 

Seventh777

RIP Roy
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Location
Planet Tharg, dark side, where nothing grows.
The theoretical RTP should be based on a complete cycle of all possible combinations with returns calculated from the paytable - along with any bonus or free spin rounds added in.
As to how that may reflect over shorter or longer periods of time would be down to the variance of the particular slot.
All the above assumes a completely fair game with no weighting.

1stly.. thx for your time in explaining this Rusty (albeit in several threads lol) it is highly appreciated :thumbsup: .

2ndly..Sorry for slightly derailing your thread P.A. ;).

3rdly..... And the $64,000 question, are these cycles of all possible combinations assessed via individual play (which is pretty much how it seems to me) or as a result of how much an individual slot is played per casino?.
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
1stly.. thx for your time in explaining this Rusty (albeit in several threads lol) it is highly appreciated :thumbsup: .

2ndly..Sorry for slightly derailing your thread P.A. ;).

3rdly..... And the $64,000 question, are these cycles of all possible combinations assessed via individual play (which is pretty much how it seems to me) or as a result of how much an individual slot is played per casino?.

This is pokeraddicts thread but I'm sure he doesn't mind. :p
I will give you an answer here but if you want to know more you can always PM me.

When I say based on a complete cycle or total combinations I am referring to how many possible permutations (outcomes) there are on the slot.
So if a slot has 10 stop positions for each reel (10 symbols) and has 5 reels the total combinations possible are 10x10x10x10x10 = 100,000 different possible combinations.
Of course most slots have many more stop positions on each reel and the possible outcomes are in the millions.

To get the theoretical RTP from our 100,000 combination slot we would add up all the wins as we cycled through each and every combination.

We do this simply by stepping through the array (5 reels,10 stop positions) so array 1,1,1,1,1 would be our first spin with the stop position at 1 on each reel.
We then go onto the next position 1,1,1,1,2 until the 5th reel gets to ten then it would reset to one and the fourth reel would be incremented one so that our 11th step through the array would be 1,1,1,2,1.
We then increment the 5th reel up to ten again and repeat.
Think of it like a mileometer in your car ticking over.

After a complete cycle we know the total bet would of been 100,000 coins because we are looking at one line at a time and there are 100,000 spins (steps through the array)
So if our total was 95,000 coins the slot would have a theoretical RTP of 95%

The reason it is referred to as theoretical RTP is because when we introduce the RNG a player in 100,000 spins at 1 line would obviously not hit all 100,000 combinations once each - but if he did his return would be 95%

There is a real art to designing a slot that plays well - especially if you throw out probability tables and weighting algorithms.
 

zanzibar

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2008
Location
Earth
Try contacting Michael Shackleford at wizardofodds dot com. He was a casino math professor in Las Vegas and loves this stuff.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Location
Toronto, Ontario - Canada

AreYouCereus

Dormant account
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Location
Europe
Hehe,

I'm partly to blame for the confusion, sorry guys, I did do scan to see if it had already been mentioned and couldn't find anything.

Thanks for taking a closer look, much appreciated!
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Location
United Kingdom
Regarding guaranteed RTP, if such a thing were true, it would probably work in a similar way to AWP games and it could be employed in any number of ways yet unlike a AWP game they would maintain randomness.

I very much doubt a Casino or software provider would be foolish enough to implement such a system though one never knows.

I think the more likely scenario is weighting which is basically just an advanced dynamic version of the above that retains randomness.
This would be very difficult to detect in slot games but in a game like Keno using a pseudo RNG it would stick out like a sore thumb if it were implemented poorly for the reasons I mention previously.
You couldn't cheat such a system though by forcing patterns because it would retain randomness.

Other than that it can only be a faulty RNG but if I have the facts correct, that the draws maintain randomness yet the results do not, then that can not be the case.

I'm not sure what you meant in your last paragraph. Are you talking about advertised theoretical RTP in paytables or audit results?

This would mean that the numbers selected by the player are deliberately being suppressed during the process of generating the results. This is cheating plain & simple. The players' selections should NEVER be used to weight the results of the draw, whether this is in the players' favour or not. This goes BEYOND mere weighting, and is CHEATING. It could be a means of guaranteeing profit for the operator, yet giving the APPEARANCE of the game being random. This is one of the main features advertised by the software vendor for "start_your_own_casino", and this would be down to "evil software".

What is even MORE serious about this allegation is that it is Absolute Poker, recently busted for a massive cheating scandal, and telling everybody it was the act of "rogue ex employees" and measures had been taken to ensure it could never happen again. If this latest allegation is shown to be true (statistically speaking), then we have the concern that it was NEVER "rogue employees" in the first place, but company policy to cheat players, but try not to get caught.

If evidence can be gathered to demonstrate that Keno is rigged, it should be sent to the Kahnawake, as now they have a more robust attitude to misbehaving licensees, and will NOT want the embarrassment of yet ANOTHER scandal having happened at Absolute Poker whilst they appeared to "look the other way" rather than take a hands on approach to ensuring that AP did indeed "play fair" after the cheating scandal.
 
Top